Judgment :- 1. The second appeal arises oat of O.S. 154 of 1966 which is a suit for recovery of Rs. 4094-90. The case of the plaintiff is that in the morning of 24th April 1964, the defendant took a hand loan of Rs. 3,500 from the plaintiff for family expenses agreeing to repay with interest at 9 percent per annum and on that very day in the evening, the defendant executed a stamped receipt in token of having received this amount. Therefore, the suit is filed on the original debt, the receipt even if it be a promissory note, being insufficiently stamped. 2. In the written statement the defendant contended that he never executed any receipt nor did he borrow any hand loan at all. His further case was that the plaintiff requested the defendant to sell one of his cows, and thereupon, it was sold for Rs. 220, that purporting it to be a receipt for the payment of the said sum of Rs. 220 the sort promissory note has been taken from him stealthily and that in any event the suit document is inadmissible in evidence as not being duly stamped and that the suit band on the original cause of action is not maintainable. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the suit promissory note was insufficiently stamped and further held there was no borrowing by the defendant. 3. On appeal, the lower appellate court upheld the borrowing but however confirmed the finding that the promissory note being insufficiently stamped it was not open to the plaintiff to recover the same and the suit will not lie on the debt since the promissory note embodied all the terms of the contract. 4. A careful reading of the plaint will clearly show that the borrowing is in the morning of 24th April 1964 and in the evening the promissory note cape to fee executed. Therefore, the courts below are not right if holding that the suit cannot be maintained on the original cause of action. I say so, because the very Full Bench judgment on which both the courts below relied Perumal v. Kamakashi A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 785 clearly lays down whether a suit lies on the debt apart from the instrument therefore depends on the circumstances under when the instrument was executed. I say so, because the very Full Bench judgment on which both the courts below relied Perumal v. Kamakashi A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 785 clearly lays down whether a suit lies on the debt apart from the instrument therefore depends on the circumstances under when the instrument was executed. If really the instrument is only an evidence of the lending, certainly the suit will lie. In this connection, I may usefully refer to the observations of the Full Bench made at page 789: “The question it, how far does this rule or the reason of the rule apply to cases In which a person borrowing money executes as part of the some transaction a promissory note in favour of the lender? That the terms as to fate of interest, date of payment, etc. form part of the contract and cannot be proved except by proof of the note seems to be more or less admitted,” Again, at page 793, it is said: “In the case of a loan transaction, the Principal contract itself consists of the promise to repay and it cannot be said that the ‘implied promise on which the action for money had and received depends’ forms no part of but is merely collateral to the main contract.” Therefore, the finding of both the courts that the salt is not maintainable is incorrect and is liable to be eat Aside. In as much as the lower appellate court has held that the borrowing is true the suit will have to be necessarily decreed, and consequently, the plaintiff succeeds and he will be entitled to a decree as prayed for. But the parties will bear their respective costs throughout. No leave.