1966 (11) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... month on Mah Sudi l-S. 2016." The pronote was executed on Katik Badi 1-X. 2016 and was attested by a witness Bhanwarlal. The appellate court held, following the decision of a learned Singh Judge of the Madras High Court in Muthu Gounder v. Perumayammal, AIR 1961 Mad 347 that the promise contained in the above document was not unconditional inasmuch as the amount was payable on demand, the demand being a condition precedent. 2. In the above case the language of the promissory note runs as follows: "1 promise to pay you or your order after a period of two years on demand by you the principal together with interest." It was observed: "Under Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act a promissory note is one that would come with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itional promise to pay, which would otherwise exist if the promisor had merely agreed to pay ON demand, is qualified and made into a conditional one by making it payable after a period of two years; or conversely the unconditional promise which would exist even if the money is made conditional by the stipulation for a demand thereafter. It cannot be said that the words "on demand" contained in the suit promissory notes have the technical meaning of being payable immediately, as they are conditional upon not being payable for a period of two years. Further, the demand contemplated is one to be made after a period of two years, The making of a demand in such a case would be a condition precedent to the payment and, therefore, ther....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....within the meaning of Article 43 of the Stamp Act. Reliance was placed on Tikam Chand v. Laxmichand, AIR 1961 Raj 87 and Meghraj v. Shivji, Civil Revn. No. 105 of 1962 decided on 14-8-1962 (Raj) in which following the decision in Parlab Chand Ratan Chand v. Gilbert, AIR 1934 All 695 (1) it was held by me that a Shah Jog Hundi and a promissory note respectively payable after a fixed time were to be treated as payable on demand for the purpose of Stamp Act. On reconsideration I find that Tikam Chand's case, AIR 1961 Raj 87 and Meghraj's case, Civil Revn. No. 105 of 1962 D/- 14-8-1962 (Raj) were incorrectly decided and that the analogy of a post-dated cheque cannot he applied to either a Hundi or a promissory note as the provisions re....