TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (3) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The defendant in a suit on a promissory note is the appellant. His contention before the lower Courts was that the promissory note was not genuine; but the lower Courts have not accepted this. On the evidence on record and by comparing the signatures and handwriting with the admitted signatures and handwriting of the appellant, the lower Courts have held that the promissory note was genuine. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....because, at the time it was signed by the executant, there was only one stamp of one anna and three one anna stamps were affixed only subsequently. In support of this contention the counsel relies on the Division Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court in Mrs. Rohini Chandrakant Vijayakar v. A. 1. Fernandez, : AIR 1956 Bom 421. In that case there were two executants in the promissory note; and both ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not proper. That is the reasoning of Chagla, C. J. also. 4. I may now refer to another Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in Surij Mull v. Hudson, (1901) ILK 21 Mad 259. In that case a promissory note was signed by the sole, executant; and the requisite stamp was affixed and cancelled after the signing. The Division Bench held that the signing and affixing of the stamp were practicall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igning. It is easy to understand how signing can be effected after affixing the stamp. But, it is not easy to conceive how affixing the Stamp and affixing the signature can be done simultaneously, at the same time. Therefore, we have lo interpret the expression "at the time of execution", in a reasonable manner and the view expressed by the Madras High Court appears to be the more reason....