Judgement JUDGMENT:- Aggrieved by the decree passed by the courts below in the suit on a promissory note Ex. A-1, the defendant has come up by way of Second Appeal. 2. The allegations in the plaint are that the defendant is a permanent resident of Thevarmbur, Ramnad District. He borrowed a sum of Rs 2,600 upon a promissory note from one Rama Konar of Pillamangalam village for meeting his family and agricultural expenses while he and the said Rama Konar were in India. Subsequently, he went to Singapore and Rams Konar also went there. In Singapore the defendant executed a promissory note on 22-10-1962 affixing Indian stamp and agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at 6 per cent, per annum. In spite of repeated demands, the said amount remained unpaid. Rama Konar having assigned the promissory note to the plaintiff on 1-8-1964, the present suit has come to be filed. 3. In the written statement, the defendant denied the borrowing and the executing of the promissory note in Singapore. His case was that in 1958 itself he left India for Singapore and since then, he had been residing continuously and the amount that was borrowed was in Singapore dollars. It was agreed that the money should be repaid in Singapore. Until May, 1964, interest was regularly paid to Rama Konar every month. The further contention of the defendant was since the plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of the Money Lenders Ordinance, Singapore, the suit had to fail. 4. The learned District Munsif held that the suit promissory note did not come under the provisions of Singapore Money Lenders Ordinance and the partial failure of consideration and the discharge pleaded by the defendant were true and thus decreed the suit. On appeal, the learned Subordinate judge accepted those findings. 5. Mr. T.R. Mani, the learned counsel for the defendant draws my attention to the decision of Mr. Alagiriswami, J., as he then was, in A. A. O. Nos. On appeal, the learned Subordinate judge accepted those findings. 5. Mr. T.R. Mani, the learned counsel for the defendant draws my attention to the decision of Mr. Alagiriswami, J., as he then was, in A. A. O. Nos. 48 and 49 of 1968 = (reported in 1969-1 Mad LJ 590) wherein the learned Judge held: " the instrument was endorsed in favour of the respondent in these two cases in Singapore....In this case we are not concerned with costs of transfer in India." On this basis, the learned Judge rejected the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant about the nature of the instrument and after the dismissal of this appeal against Appellate Order, when the matter went back to the court below, since they were bound by the judgment of the High Court, the question whether the instrument was a foreign instrument or an "in land instrument" and the applicability of Section 19 of the Indian Stamp Act was not available to him and consequently, it had caused serious prejudice. 6. Mr. K. Gopalachari, the learned counsel for the respondent, in meeting this contention, submits that, no doubt, the two findings of Mr. Alagiriswami, J., extracted above, are not factually correct. But if a look at the suit promissory note is made, it will clearly go to show that it only an "inland instrument" within the meaning of Section 11 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The preamble of the promissory note recites that both the parties are only temporarily residing in Singapore. The Tamil portion (here transliterated in English-Ed.) for proper appreciation, is as follows: "Suba Kirudu Varudam Ipacy Matham 6th Thethi, A. 22-10-62 Tiruchi Zilla Tirumayam Taluka, Pillamangalathilirundu Tharsamayam Singapore 116 Hill Side Drivilirukkum Rama. Ramagonar Awarkaiukku, Eramanadapuram Zilla, Tirupattur Taluka, Thevaram Purilirundu Tarsanayam Singapore 116 Hill Side Drivilurukkum Chi. Somayya Yelu-dhi Koduttha Promissory Note" Section 11 clearly lays down that if a promissory note is drawn upon any person resident in India, it shall be deemed to be an 'Inland instrument'. The decision in A.G. Kidston and Co. Ltd. v. Seth Brothers, ILR 57 Cal 730 = (AIR 1930 Cal 692) is also relied on for this submission. I think that the learned counsel for the respondent is correct in his submission. The promissory note, undoubtedly, recites that both parties belong to India and temporarily are in Singapore. The decision in A.G. Kidston and Co. Ltd. v. Seth Brothers, ILR 57 Cal 730 = (AIR 1930 Cal 692) is also relied on for this submission. I think that the learned counsel for the respondent is correct in his submission. The promissory note, undoubtedly, recites that both parties belong to India and temporarily are in Singapore. That being so, this is an instrument drawn on a person resident in India and it is an inland instrument. So, whatever incorrect statements that are found in the judgment of Mr. Alagiriswami, J., cannot, in any manner, prejudice the case of the appellant since I come to the conclusion that this is an 'inland instrument' and the decision quoted above, viz., A. G. Kidston and Co. Ltd v. Seth Brothers, ILR 57 Cal 730 = (AIR 1930 Cal 692) fully supports the respondent. 7. The next submission of Mr. T.R. Mani is that the suit promissory note offends Section 3 of the Money Lenders Ordinance of Singapore. The courts below have found that only in these two cases, the plaintiff had advanced the amounts and, therefore, he could be considered to be a money lender within the meaning of Section 3 of that Ordinance and that presumption being rebuttable, the evidence of P.W. 3 that her husband is a Municipal employee on daily wages at Singapore and not a money lender has been accepted. I am in entire agreement with this finding. In this view, I find that the suit promissory note does not, in any way, offend Section 3 of the said Ordinance. 8. The next contention is that the borrowing was only in Singapore dollars and that the money was not paid in India and the evidence that was let in concerning this issue was that the money was received by the mother of the defendant. Whatever may be the oral evidence concerning this, the document clearly recites that the money was advanced in India and the recitals of the plaint, in paragraph 3, also make it clear that amount was received in India for agricultural expenses. So, this contention also fails. Thus, I find that there are no merits in this Second Appeal and I dismiss the same. 9. No costs; no leave. 10. The matter has been brought up before me having been put down for clarification. So, this contention also fails. Thus, I find that there are no merits in this Second Appeal and I dismiss the same. 9. No costs; no leave. 10. The matter has been brought up before me having been put down for clarification. In view of my findings in S.A. No. 453 of 1971, this second appeal will also stand dismissed. 11. No costs.