తెలుగు సామెతలు

అభ్యాసము కూసు విద్య
అచ్చిగాడి పెళ్ళిలో బుచ్చిగాడికి ఒక జంధ్యపు పోగు
అడగనిదే అమ్మైనా పెట్టదు
అబద్ధం ఆడినా అతికినట్లు ఉండాలి
అడవి కాచిన వెన్నెలలా
అడవిలో పెళ్ళికి జంతువులే పురోహితులు
అడ్డాల నాడు బిడ్డలు కానీ,గడ్డాల నాడు కాదు
అద్దం అబద్ధం చెప్పదు
అడిగే వాడికి చెప్పేవాడు లోకువ
అదిగో పులి అంటే ఇదిగో తోక అంటారు
అడుక్కునే వాడికి చెప్పులు కుట్టుకునే వాడు
అడుక్కున్నమ్మకి 60 కూరలు,వండుకున్నమ్మకు ఒకటే కూర
అడుసు తొక్కనేల కాలు కడగనేల
అగడ్తలో పడ్డ పిల్లికి అదే వైకుంఠం
అగ్నికి ఆజ్యం పోసినట్లు
అగ్నికి వాయువు తోడైనట్లు
అమాయకునికి అక్షింతలు ఇస్తే ఆవలకి వెళ్ళి నోట్లో వేసుకున్నాడట
అంబలి తాగేవాడికి మీసాలెత్తేవాడు ఒకడు …
అంభం లో కుంభం లా
అమ్మ కడుపు తడుముతుంది,పెళ్ళం జేబు తడుముతుంది
అందం అన్నం పెట్టదు
అందని మ్రానిపండ్లకు అర్రులు చాచుట
అంధుని ముందు అందాలేల?
అందితే సిగ అందక పోతే కాళ్ళు
అంగట్లో అన్నీ ఉన్నా,అల్లుడి నోట్లో శని ఉన్నట్లు
అన్న దానం కంటే విద్యా దానం గొప్పది
అన్నం పరబ్రహ్మ స్వరూపం
అన్నప్రాశన నాడే ఆవకాయ పచ్చడి
అన్నపు చొరవే గాని అక్షరపు చొరవ లేదు
అన్నీ వున్న విస్తరాకు అణిగిమణిగి ఉందట ఏమీ లేని విస్తరాకు ఎగిరెగిరి పడ్డదట…
అన్ని దానములలొ విద్యా దానం గొప్పది
అన్ని చోట్లా బావే కానీ వంగ తోట కాడ మాత్రం కాదు
అంత్య నిష్టూరం కన్నా ఆది నిష్టూరం మేలు
అనుమానం పెనుభూతం
అప్పిచ్చువాడు వైద్యుడు
అర్ధరాత్రి మద్దెలదరువు
అసలే లేదంటే పెసరపప్పు వండమన్నాడట ఒకడు
అసలు కంటే వడ్డీ ముద్దు
అసలుకే ఎసరు పెట్టినటు
అసమర్థుడికి అవకాశమివ్వనేల?
అతి రహస్యం బట్ట బయలు
అత్త లేని కోడలుత్తమురాలు,కోడలు లేని అత్త గుణవంతురాలు
అత్త మీద కోపం దుత్త మీద చూపినట్లు
అత్త సొమ్ము అల్లుడు దానం
అయిన వారికి అరిటాకుల్లో కాని వారికి కంచాల్లో
అయితే ఆదివారం,కాకుంటే సోమవారం
అయ్యవారు వచ్చే వరకూ అమావాస్య ఆగుతుందా?
అయ్యకి లేక అడుక్కుని తింటుంటే,కొడుకొచ్చి కోడి పలావు అడిగాట్ట
అయ్యవారిని చెయ్యబోతే కోతి అయ్యినట్లు

ఆ తాను ముక్కే !!!
ఆడబోయిన తీర్థం యెదురైనట్లు
ఆడదాని వయసు మగవాని సంపాదన అడగొద్దన్నట్టు
ఆడది సాధించలేనిది లేదు,ముఖ్యంగా మొగుడిని
ఆడలేక మద్దెల వోడు అన్నట్లు
ఆడవాళ్ళకి బట్టతల రాదేమండి? బెట్టుదల ఎక్కువగనుక
ఆది లోనే హంస పాదు
ఆడి తప్ప రాదు,పలికి బొంక రాదు
ఆకాశానికి హద్దు లేదు
ఆకలి రుచి యెరుగదు,నిద్ర సుఖం ఎరుగదు,వలపు సిగ్గెరుగదు
ఆకలి వేస్తే రోకలి మింగమన్నాట్ట
ఆకు ఎగిరి ముల్లు మీద పడ్డ,ముల్లు వచ్చి ఆకు మీద పడినా చిరిగేది ఆకే
ఆలశ్యం అమృతం విషం
ఆలు లేదు,చూలు లేదు,కొడుకు పేరు సోమలింగం అన్నట్టు
ఆరిపోయే దీపానికి వెలుగు ఎక్కువ
ఆరోగ్యమే మహాభాగ్యము
ఆస్థి మూరెడు ఆశ బారెడు
ఆత్రగానికి బుద్ధి మట్టము
ఆవలింతకు అన్న ఉన్నాడు కాని,తుమ్ముకు తమ్ముడు లేడంట
ఆవలిస్తే పేగులు లెఖ్ఖ పెట్టినట్లు
ఆవు చేల్లో మేస్తే,దూడ గట్టున మేస్తుందా?
ఆయనే ఉంటే మంగలి ఎందుకు అని?
ఆడవారి మాటలకు అర్థాలే వేరులే
ఆకులు నాక్కునే వాడి దగ్గర మూతులు నాక్కునే వాడట
ఆశపోతు బ్రాహ్మడు లేచిపోతూ పప్పు అడిగాడుట

బావిలో కప్పలా…
బంక్తిలో బాలపక్షం
బతకలేక బడి పంతులయినట్టు
బతికుంటే బలుసాకు తినవచ్చు
బెల్లం చుట్టూ ఈగల్లా
బెల్లం కొట్టిన రాయిలా
భార్యా రూపవతి శత్రు:
భక్తి లేని పూజ పత్రి చేటు
బిడ్డొచ్చిన వేళ గొడ్డొచ్చిన వేళ
బోడి ముండకి మంగళ హారతి ఒకటి
బొంకులెన్నే కోడలా అంటే-అని అనిపించుకో అత్తగారా నీకు ఆరు నాకు మూడు అందట
బూడిదలో పోసిన పన్నీరు

చాదస్తపు మొగుడికి తెలీదు,చెపితే వినడు,కొడితే ఏడుస్తాడు
చాప కింద నీరులాగ
ఛావు కబురు చల్లగ చెప్పినట్లు
చావు తప్పి కన్ను లొట్ట పోయినట్లు
చచ్చినవాని కళ్ళు చారెడు
చచ్చిన వాడి పెళ్ళికి వొచ్చిందే కట్నం
చద్ది కూడు తిన్నమ్మ మొగుడాకలి యెరగదట
చదవేస్తే ఉన్నమతి పోయినట్టు
చదువు రాని వాడు వింత పశువు
చేతకానమ్మకే చేష్టలెక్కువ
చేతులు కాలాక ఆకులు పట్టుకున్నట్లు
చక్కనమ్మ చిక్కినా అందమే
చల్ల కొచ్చి ముంత దాచినట్లు
చంకలో పిల్లాడ్ని పెట్టుకుని ఊరంతా తిరిగినట్టు…
చస్తుంటే సంధ్య మంత్రమన్నాడట ఒకడు…
చెడపకురా చెడేవు
చెముడా అంటే మొగుడా అన్నట్టు
చెప్పే వాడికి వినే వాడు లోకువ అన్నట్టు…
చెప్పేవన్నీ శ్రీరంగ నీతులు,దూరేవన్నీ దొమ్మరి గుడిసెలు
చెరపకురా చెడెదవు,ఉరకకురా పడెదవు
చెరువుకి నీటి ఆశ,నీటికి చెరువు ఆశ
చెట్టు పేరు చెప్పి కాయలమ్ముకున్నట్లు
చెవిలో జొరీగలాగ…
చెవిటి వాడి ముందు శంఖం ఊదినట్లు
చెవిటోడి పెళ్ళికి,మూగోడి కచ్చేరీ
చిల్లర దేవుళ్ళకు చేరువయితే,అసలు దేవుడికి దూరమౌతావు
చిన్న పామునైనా పెద్ద కర్రతోటే కొట్టాలి
చింత చచ్చినా పులుపు చావ లేదు
చింతకాయలు అమ్మేదానికి సిరిమానం వస్తే,ఆ వంకర టింకరవి యేమి కాయలని అడుగుతుందట
చిత్తం శివుని పైన,భక్తి చెప్పుల పైన
చిలికి చిలికి గాలివాన అయినట్లు
చూసి రమ్మంటే కాల్చి వచ్చినట్టు

దాసుని తప్పు దండంతో సరి
డబ్బేమన్నా చెట్టుకి కాస్తుందా?
డబ్బివ్వని వాడు పడవ ముందు యెక్కాడట
డబ్బూ పోయే శని కూడాపట్టే అన్నట్టు
డబ్బుకు లోకం దాసోహం
దేవుడు వరం ఇచ్చినా పూజారి వరం ఇవ్వనట్టు
దక్కిందే దక్కుడు
దమ్మిడి ముండకి ఏగాణి క్షవరం
దంపినమ్మకు బొక్కిందే కూలన్నట్టు
దండం దశగుణంభవేత్
దరిద్రుడి పెళ్ళికి వడగళ్ళ వాన
దయగల మొగుడు తలుపు దగ్గరకు వేసి కొట్టాడట
దీపముండగానే ఇల్లు చక్కబెట్టుకోవాలి
దేవుడి గుదిలోనే పదిలం బయటకు వస్తే పదలం
దెయ్యాలు వేదాలు వల్లించినట్లు
దిక్కు లేని వాళ్ళకి దేవుడే దిక్కు
దినదిన గండం,దీర్ఘాయుస్షు
దొంగ చేతికి తాళాలు ఇచ్చినట్లు
దొంగకు దొంగ బుద్ధి,దొరకు దొర బుద్ధి
దొంగకు తేలు కుట్టినట్లు
దూరపు కొండలు నునుపు
దొరికితేనే దొంగలు,దొరక్క పొతే అందరూ దొరలే
దున్నపోతు మీద వర్షం కురిసినట్లు
దురాశ దుఖానికి చేటు

ఎద్దు పుండు కాకికి నొప్పా?
ఎగిరే గాలిపటానికి దారం ఆధారం
ఎక్కడైనా బావే కానీ వంగతోట దగ్గర మాత్రం కాదు
ఎవరు తీసిన గోతిలో వారే పడతారు
ఏనుగు బ్రతికినా వెయ్యే,చచ్చినా వెయ్యే
ఏ చెట్టూ లేని చోట ఆముదము చెట్టే మహా వృక్షం
ఏ ఎండకు ఆ గొడుగు

గాడిద సంగీతానికి ఒంటె ఆశ్చర్యపడితే,ఒంటె అందానికి గాడిద మూర్చ పోయిందట
గాజుల బేరం భోజనానికి సరి
గాలిలో దీపం పెట్టి దేవుడా నీదే భారం అన్నట్టు
గాలికిపోయే దానిని గుండుకి చుట్టుకున్నట్లు
గంతకు తగ్గ బొంత
గతి లేనమ్మకు గంజే పానకము
గోరు చుట్టు మీద రోకలి పోటు
గోడ మీద రాసుకున్న రేపు ఎప్పటికీ రాదు
గోడ మీది పిల్లి వాటం
గోడలకు చెవులుంటాయి
గొడ్డుని చూసి గడ్డెయ్యాలి
గోముఖ వ్యాఘ్రం
గొంతెమ్మ కోరికలు
గోటితో పొయ్యేదానికి గొడ్డలి వాడినట్టు
గుడ్డి కన్నా మెల్ల మేలు
గుడ్డెద్దు జొన్న చేల్లో పడినట్లు
గుడ్డోచ్చి పిల్లని వెక్కిరించినట్లు
గుడ్డి కన్ను మూసినా ఒకటే తెరిచినా ఒకటే
గుడి మింగే వాడికి నంది పిండిమిరియం
గుడిని గుడిలో లింగాన్ని మింగినట్లు
గుడ్ల మీద కోడిపెట్టలాగ
గుంభనం గునపం లాంటిది,బయటే వాడుకోవాలి,కడుపులో వుంటే పోట్లు పొడుస్తుంది
గుమ్మడికాయల దొంగ అంటే భుజాలు తడుముకున్నాడట
గుర్రం గుడ్డిదైనా దాణాకి లోటు లేదు
గురువుకి పంగనామాలు పెట్టినట్లు
గురువును మించిన శిష్యుడు

ఇంట గెల్చి రచ్చ గెలువమన్నారు
తిన్నింటి వాసాలు లెఖ్ఖపెట్టినట్లు
ఇంటి దొంగను ఈశ్వరుడైన పట్టలేడు
ఇంటి పేరు కస్తూరివారు ఇంట్లో గబ్బిలాల కంపు
ఇంటికన్నా గుడి పదిలం
ఇంట్లో చూరు కింద నీళ్ళు తాగి,బయటకొచ్చి చల్ల తాగామని చెప్పుకున్నట్టు
ఇంట్లో ఈగల మోత బైట పల్లకీ మోత
ఇస్తే హిరణ్య దానం,ఇవ్వక పొతే కన్యాదానం
ఇసుక తక్కెడ పేడ తక్కెడ
ఐశ్వర్యం వస్తే అర్థ రాత్రి గొడుగు పట్టమనేవాడు

జోగీ జోగీ రాసుకుంటే రాలేది బూడిదే
జుత్తు వున్న అమ్మ యే కొప్పైనా పెడుతుంది

కాచిన చెట్టుకే రాళ్ళ దెబ్బలు
కాగలకార్యం గంధర్వులే తీర్చినట్లు
కాకి ముక్కుకు దొండపండు
కాకి పిల్ల కాకికి ముద్దు
కాకిలా కలకాలం బ్రతికేకన్నా,హంసలా ఆరు నెలలు బ్రతికితే చాలు
కాలం కలిసి రాకపొతే,కర్రే పామై కాటు వేస్తుంది
కాలికేస్తే మెడకి,మెడకేస్తే కాలికి
కాలు జారితే తీసుకోగలం కానీ నోరు జారితే తీసుకోలేము
కాషాయం కట్టిన వాళ్ళందరూ సన్యాసులు కారు,కషాయం మింగినవాళ్ళందరికీ కఫం కరగదు
కాయా పండా?
కధ కంచికి మనం ఇంటికి
కడుపా?కళ్ళేపల్లి చెరువా?
కడుపు చించుకుంటే కాళ్ళపైన పడ్డట్లు
కలకాలపు దొంగైనా ఏదో ఒకనాడు దొరుకుతాడు
కలిమిలేములు కావడి కుండలు
కలిసి వచ్చే కాలానికి నడిచి వచ్చే కొడుకు పుడతాడన్నట్టు
కళ్యాణమొచ్చినా కక్కొచ్చినా ఆగదన్నట్లు
కనకపు సింహాసనమున శునకమును కూర్చుండబెట్టినట్టు…
కంచే చేను మేసినట్లు
కంచు మ్రోగునట్లు కనకంబు మ్రోగునా!
కందకులేని దురద కత్తి పీటకెందుకు?
కడవంత గుమ్మడికాయ కత్తి పీటకు లోకువ
కందెన వేయని బండికి కావాల్సినంత సంగీతం
కరవమంటే కప్పకు కోపం,విడవమంటే పాముకు కోపం
కర్ర ఇచ్చిమరీ పళ్ళు రాలకొట్టించు కోవడం
కష్టే ఫలే
కట్టె కొట్టె తెచ్చె…
కయ్యానికి కాలు దువ్వడం
కీడెంచి మేలెంచమన్నారు
కొడితే ఏనుగు కుంభస్థలం మీద కొట్టాలి
కొంప కొల్లేరు అయ్యింది
కొనబోతే కొరివి అమ్మబోతే అడివి
కొండనాలిక్కి మందేస్తే ఉన్ననాలిక ఊడినట్లు
కొండల్లే వచ్చిన ఆపద కూడా మంచులా కరిగినట్లు
కొండను తవ్వి యెలుకను పట్టినట్లు
కూటికి పేదైతే కులానికి పేదా?
కొప్పున్నమ్మ కోటి ముడులు వేస్తుంది
కొరకరాని కొయ్యలా
కొరివితో తల గోక్కోవడం
కోతిపుండు బ్రహ్మరాక్షసి
కోతికి కొబ్బరిచిప్ప ఇచ్చినట్లు
కొత్తొక వింత పాతొక రోత
కోటివిద్యలు కూటి కొరకే
కొత్త అప్పుకు పోతే పాత అప్పు బయటపడ్డదట
కొత్త బిచ్చగాడు పొద్దు యెరగడు
కృషితో నాస్తి దుర్భిక్షం
క్షేత్రమెరిగి విత్తనం పాతాలి,పాత్రమెరిగి దానము చెయ్యాలి
కూసే గాడిదొచ్చి మేసే గాడిదను చెడగొట్టిందట
కుడుము చేతికిస్తే పండగ అనేవాడు
కుక్క కాటుకు చెప్పు దెబ్బ
కుక్క వస్తే రాయి దొరకదు,రాయి దొరికితే కుక్క రాదు
కుక్షిలో అక్షరం ముక్క లేదు కానీ
కుళ్ళు ముండకి అల్లంపచ్చడి అన్నట్టు
కుంచమంత కూతురుంటే అన్నీ మంచెలోనే

లేని దాత కంటే ఉన్న లోభి నయం
లోగుట్టు పెరుమాళ్ళకెరుక

మా తాతలు నేతులు తాగారు మా మూతులు వాసన చూడండి అన్నట్లు
మాటలు చూస్తే కోటలు దాటుతాయి
మాటలు నేర్చిన కుక్క ఉస్కో అంటే ఉస్కో అందట
మంచమున్నంత వరకు కాళ్ళు చాచుకో
మంచి వాడు మంచి వాడు అంటే మంచమెక్కి గంతులేసాడుట
మంచికి పొతే చెడెదురైనట్లు
మంచిమాటకు మంది అంతా మనవాళ్ళే
మంది యెక్కువయితే మజ్జిగ పలచన అయినట్లు
మందుకి పంపితే మాసికానికి వచ్చాడట
మనిషి మర్మము,మాని చేవ బయటకు తెలియవు
మనిషికి మాటే అలంకారం
మనసుంటే మార్గముంటుంది
మంచిమనిషికొక మాట-గొడ్డుకొక దెబ్బ
మనిషికొక తెగులు మహిలోసుమతీ
తానొకటి తలిస్తే దైవమొకటి తలిచినట్టు
మంత్రాలకు చింతకాయలు రాలవు
మంత్రాలు తక్కువ తుంపర్లు ఎక్కువ
బోడి సంపాదనకు ఇద్దరు పెళ్ళాలా?
మేకవన్నె పులి
మెరిసేదంతా బంగారం కాదు
మెత్తగా ఉంటే మొత్త బుద్ధి అయ్యిందట
మింగ మెతుకులేదు మీసాలకు సంపెంగ నూనె!
మొదటికే మోసం
మొదట భోగి,భోగాలెక్కువై రోగి,రోగాలు భరించలేక యోగి
మొగుడ్ని తన్ని మొగసాలకెక్కిందట
మొగుడు కొట్టినందుకు కాదు,తోడికోడలు దెప్పినందుకు
మొహమటానికి పొతే కడుపు అయ్యిందట
మొక్కై వంగనిది మానై వంగునా?
మొండి వాడు రాజు కన్నా బలవంతుడు…
మూల విగ్రహానికి లేక ఈగలు తోలుకుంటుంటే,ఉత్సవ విగ్రహాలు వచ్చి వూరేగింపు ఎప్పుడు అన్నాయట
మూలిగే నక్క మీద తాటికాయ పడ్డట్లు
మూణ్ణాళ్ళ ముచ్చట
మొరటోడికి మొగలి పువ్విస్తే మడిచి ముడ్లో పెట్టుకున్నాడట
మొరిగే కుక్క కరవదు
మోసేవానికే తెలుస్తుంది కావడి బరువు
ముడ్డి మీద తంతే మూతి పళ్ళు రాలినట్టు
ముక్కు పట్టుకోమంటే బ్రాహ్మడి ముక్కు పట్టుకున్నాడట
ముక్కు మీద కోపం
ముక్కు సూటిగా పోవడం
ముళ్ళ కంప మీద పడిన గుడ్డలా…
ముల్లును ముల్లుతోటే తియ్యాలి,వజ్రాన్ని వజ్రం తోటే కొయ్యాలి
ముండా కాదు,ముత్తైదువా కాదు
ముందర కాళ్ళకి బంధాలు వేసినట్లు
ముందుకు పోతే గొయ్యి-వెనుకకు పోతే నుయ్యి
ముందొచ్చిన చెవుల కంటే వెనకొచ్చిన కొమ్ములు వాడి
ముందుంది ముసళ్ళ పండగ
ముంజేతి కంకణానికి అద్దం యెందుకు?
ముసలాడికి దసరా పండగన్నట్లు

నారు పోసిన వాడే నీరు పోస్తాడు
నడమంత్రపు సిరి నరం మీద పుండు నిలబడనియ్యవు
నేతి బీరకాయలో నెయ్యి యెంత ఉందో,నీ మాటలో అంతే నిజం ఉంది
నక్కకి నాగలోకానికి ఉన్నంత తేడా
నాట్యం చెయ్యవే రంగసానీ అంటే నేల వంకర అందట
నవ్వే ఆడదాన్ని,ఏడ్చే మగవాడ్ని నమ్మ కూడదు
నవ్విన నాప చేనే పండుతుంది
నవ్వు నాలుగు విధాల చేటు
నవ్వులు పోయి నువ్వులౌతాయి
నీ చెవులకు రాగి పోగులే అంటే అవీ నీకు లేవే అన్నట్లు
నీ కంటి పొరలు తొలగించి చూడు,అందరి లోనూ మంచినే చూడగలవు
నీ నెత్తి మీద ఏదో ఉంది అంటే అదేదో నీ చెత్తోనే తీసెయ్యి అన్నాడట
నీ ఎడమ చెయ్యి తియ్యి నా పుర్ర చెయ్యి పెడతానన్నాడట ఒకడు…
నాకోడి కూస్తేకాని తెల్లవారదన్నట్టు
నీరు పల్ల మెరుగు,నిజము దేముడెరుగు
నిదానమే ప్రధానం
నిజం నిలకడ మీద తెలుస్తుంది
నిజం నిప్పు లాంటిది
నిమ్మకు నీరెత్తినట్లు
నిండా మునిగిన వానికి చలి యేమిటి?
నిండు కుండ తొణకదు
నిన్నటి అబద్ధాన్ని ఇవ్వాల్టి నిజంతో కప్పి పుచ్చలేము
నిప్పు ముట్టనిది చెయ్యి కాలదు
నూరు గొడ్లు తిన్న రాబందుకైనా ఒక్కటే గాలిపెట్టు
నోరు మంచిదైతే ఊరు మంచిది
నువ్వు ఎక్కాల్సిన రైలు ఎప్పుడూ ఒక జీవితకాలం ఆలస్యం,అది దేవుడు నీ జీవితంపై వేసిన వేటు
నువ్వు మేకని కొంటే నేను పులిని కొని నీ మేకని చంపిస్తా అన్నాడట

ఓడ ఎక్కేదాకా ఓడ మల్లన్న ఓడ దిగిన తర్వాత బోడి మల్లన్న అన్నట్టు
ఒక ఒరలో రెండు కత్తులు ఇమడవు
ఓలి తక్కువని గుడ్డిదాన్ని పెళ్ళాడాట్ట
ఒంటి పూట తిన్నమ్మ ఓర్చుకుంటే,మూడు పూటలు తిన్నమ్మ మూర్చ పోయిందట
ఊళ్ళో పెళ్ళికి కుక్కల హడావిడి
ఊపిరి ఉంటే ఉప్పమ్ముకుని బ్రతకవచ్చు
ఊరక రారు మహానుభావులు
ఊరంతా చుట్టాలేకాని ఉట్టికట్ట తావు లేదు
ఊరు మొహం గోడలు చెపుతాయి
ఊరు పొమ్మంటోంది కాడు రమ్మంటోంది
ఊరుకున్నంత ఉత్తమం లేదు,బోడి గుండంత సుఖం లేదు
ఒట్టు తీసి గట్టున పెట్టు

పాడిందే పాడరా పాచిపళ్ళ దాసరీ
పాకీ దానితో సరసం కంటే అత్తరు సాయబ్బు తో కలహం మేలు
పాము కాళ్ళు పామున కెరుక
పానకంలో పుడకలాగ
పాపమని పాత చీర ఇస్తే గోడ చాటుకు వెళ్ళి మూర వేసిందట
పాపి చిరాయువు
పచ్చ కామెర్ల వాడికి లోకం అంతా పచ్చగా కనపడినట్లు
పదుగురాడు మాట పాడియై చెల్లు
పక్కలో బల్లెం లాగ
పండగనాడు కూడా పాత మొగుడే అన్నట్లు
పంచ పాండవులు ఎంత మంది అని అడిగితే మంచం కోళ్ళలా ముగ్గురు అని రెండు వేళ్ళు చూపించాడట
పాండవులు సంపాదించిన రాజ్యం కౌరవుల తద్దినానికే సరిపోయిందట
పండిత పుత్ర:పరమ శుంఠ:
పనిలేని మంగలి పిల్లి తల గొరిగినట్టు
పప్పులో కాలేసినట్టు…
పరాయి సొమ్ము పాము వంటిది
పరిగెత్తి పాలు తాగే కంటే నిలబడి నీళ్ళు తాగడం మేలు
పట్ట పగలు కాకులు కావు కావు మంటుంటే మొగుడ్ని కౌగలించుకుందట
పట్టిందల్లా బంగారమైనట్లు
పెదవి దాటిటే పృధివి దాటుతుంది
పీనాసి వాడి పెళ్ళికి పచ్చడి మెతుకులు సంభావనట
పెళ్ళి అంటే నూరేళ్ళ పంట
పిడుక్కీ బియ్యానికీ ఒకటే మంత్రం అన్నట్టు
పెళ్ళికి వెళ్తూ పిల్లిని చంకన పెట్టుకు వెళ్ళినట్టు
పెనం మీద నుంచి పొయ్యిలో పడ్డట్టు
పేనుకు పెత్తనమిస్తే తలంతా కొరికి వదిలిపెట్టిందట
పెరుగుట తరుగుట కొరకే
పెరటి చెట్టు వైద్యానికి పనికి రాదు
పిచ్చోడి చేతిలో రాయిలా
పిచ్చుక మీద బ్రహ్మాస్త్రం
పిలవని పేరంటానికి వెళ్ళినట్లు
పిలిచి పిల్లనిస్తానంటే కులం తక్కువ అన్నాట్ట
పిల్లికి బిచ్చం వేయడు
పిల్లి శాపాలకు ఉట్లు తెగుతాయా?
పిల్లికి చెలగాటం,ఎలుకకు ప్రాణ సంకటం
పిల్లికి ఎలుక సాక్ష్యం
పిండి కొద్ధీ రొట్టె
పిట్ట కొంచెం కూత ఘనం
పోరు నష్టం పొందు లాభం
పూస గుచ్చినట్లు చెప్పడం
పోరాని చోట్లకు పోతే రారాని మాటలు రాకపోవు
పొర్లించి పొర్లించి కొట్టినా మీసాలకు మట్టి అంటలేదన్నాడట
పొరుగింటి పుల్ల కూర రుచి
పొట్ట కోస్తే అక్షరం ముక్క లేదు అన్నట్లు
పొట్టి వానికి పుట్టెడు బుద్ధులు
పోటుగాడు పందిరి వెస్తే పిచికలు వచ్చి కూల దోసాయట
పులిని చూసి నక్క వాత పెట్టుకున్నట్లు
పుండు మీద కారం చల్లినట్లు
పుణ్యం కొద్దీ పురుషుడు,దానం కొద్దీ బిడ్డలు
పువ్వు పుట్టగానే పరిమళించును

రాజు గారి దివాణంలో చాకలోడి పెత్తనం
రాజుని చూసిన కళ్ళతో మొగుడ్ని చూస్తే చులకనే కదా
రామాయణంలో పిడకలవేట
రాత రాళ్ళ పాలు ఐతే,మొగుడు ముండ పాలు అయ్యాడట
రాజు గారి రెండో భార్య మంచిది అంటే మరి పెద్ద భార్య?
రాజు తలచుకుంటే దెబ్బలకు కొదువా
రామాయణం అంతా విని సీత రాముడికి ఏమౌతుందని అడిగినట్లు
రామేశ్వరం వెళ్ళినా శనేశ్వరం వదలనట్లు
రంకు నేర్చినమ్మ బొంకు నేర్వదా అన్నట్లు
రవి కాంచని చోట కవి గాంచునట…
రెడ్డొచ్చె మొదలాడె అన్నట్టు
రెండు పడవల మీద కాళ్ళు పెట్టి ప్రయాణం చేసినట్లు
రోలొచ్చి మద్దెలతో మొర పెట్టుకుందిట…
రొట్టె విరిగి నేతిలో పడ్డట్లు
రౌతు కొద్దీ గుర్రం
రుణ శేషం శత్రు శేషం ఉంచరాదు

సంబరాల పెళ్ళికొడుకు సప్తాష్టం లో కూడా వసంతాలన్నాడట
సంకలో పిల్లాడిని ఉంచుకొని ఊరంత వెతికినట్టు
సంతోషమే సగం బలం
సర్వేంద్రియాణాం నయనం ప్రధానం
సత్రం భోజనం మఠం నిద్ర
సీత కష్టాలు సీతవి,పీత కష్టాలు పీతవి
సింగడు అద్దంకి పోనూ పొయ్యాడు రానూ వచ్చాడు
శివుని ఆజ్ఞ లేక చీమైన కుట్టదు
సొమ్మొకడిది సోకొకడిది
సుబ్బి పెళ్ళి ఎంకి చావుకి వచ్చింది

శుభం పలకరా పెళ్ళికొడకా అంటే పెళ్ళి కూతురు ముండ ఎక్కడ చచ్చింది అని అడిగాడట
శ్వాస ఉండేవరకు ఆశ ఉంటుంది

తడిగుడ్డతో గొంతులు కోసే రకం
తమ్ముడు తమ్ముడే,పేకాట పేకటే!
తా దూర కంత లేదు మెడకో డోలు
తా చెడ్డ కోతి వనమెల్లా చెరచిందట
తాడి తన్నే వాడి తల తన్నే వాడుంటాడు
తాళిబొట్టు బలం వల్ల తలంబ్రాల వరకూ బతికాడన్నట్టు
తాను పట్టిన కుందేలుకు మూడే కాళ్ళు
తాటాకు చప్పుళ్ళకు కుందేళ్ళు బెదురునా?
తాతకు దగ్గులు నేర్పుట
తల్లి పిల్లల అరుగుదల చూస్తుంది,తండ్రి పిల్లల పెరుగుదల చూస్తాడు
తన కోపమె తన శత్రువు
తన్ను మాలిన ధర్మం-మొదలు చెడ్డ బేరం
తంతే గారెల బుట్టలో పడ్డట్లు
తను చెస్తే శృంగారం,పరులు చెస్తే వ్యభిచారం
తను వలచిందే రంభ,మునిగిందే గంగ
తీగ లాగితే డొంకంతా కదిలినట్లు
తెగేదాకా లాగవద్దు
తేనె పూసిన కత్తి
తిక్కలోడు తిరనాళ్ళకు వెళితే ఎక్కా దిగా సరిపోయిందంట
తినే ముందు రుచి అడక్కు,వినే ముందు కథ అడక్కు
తినగా తినగా గారెలు కూడా చేదయినట్టు
తిండి కోసం బ్రతక్కు,బ్రతకడం కోసం తిను
తిండికి తిమ్మరాజు పనికి పోతరాజు
తింటే గారెలు తినాలి,వింటే భారతం వినాలి
తియ్యటి తేనె నిండిన నోటితొనే తేనెటీగ కుట్టేది
తిక్క మొగుడితో తీర్థం వెళితే తీర్థం అంతా తిప్పి తిప్పి కొట్టాడట
తిలా పపం తలా పిడికెడు
తిమ్మిని బమ్మిని చెయ్యడం
తిన్నింటి వాసాలు లెక్కపెట్టినట్టు
తుమ్మితే ఊడిపోయే ముక్కులా

ఉల్లి చేసిన మేలు తల్లి కూడా చేయదు
ఉన్నదీ పోయింది,ఉంచుకున్నదీ పోయింది
ఉపాయం లేని వాడ్ని ఊళ్ళోంచి తరమాలి అన్నట్లు
ఉపకారానికి పోతే అపకారమెదురైనట్లు
ఉరుమురుమి మంగలం మీద పడ్డట్లు
ఉట్టికెగరలేనమ్మ స్వర్గానికెగురుతానన్నట్టు

వాపును చూసి బలము అనుకున్నాడట
వడ్డించే వాడు మనవాడైతే యే పంక్తి లో కూర్చున్న పర్లేదు?
వడ్ల గింజలో బియ్యపు గింజ
వండుకున్నమ్మ కన్నా దండుకున్నమ్మే గొప్ప
వీపుమీద కొట్టవచ్చు కాని కడుపు మీద కొట్టరాదు
వెన్నతో పెట్టిన విద్య
వెర్రి వేయి విధాలు
వెయ్యి అబద్ధలాడైనా ఒక పెళ్ళి చెయ్యమన్నట్లు
వినేవాడు వెర్రి వెంగళప్ప అయితే చెప్పే వాడు వేదాంతిట
వినాశ కాలే విపరీత బుద్ధి

Medical Negligence Liability of Hospitals ... Radhika Shukla

According to Salmond’ Law of Torts, negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is the breach of a legal duty of care. A breach of this duty gives the patient a right to initiate action against negligence .All medical professionals, doctors, nurses, and other health care providers are responsible for the health and safety of their patients and are expected to provide a high level of quality care. Unfortunately, medical professionals and health care providers can fail in this responsibility to their patients by not giving them proper care and attention, acting maliciously, or by providing substandard care, thus causing far-reaching complications like personal injuries, and even death. Over the years the function of the hospital has slowly changed from ‘a venue for treatment’ to ‘a provider of treatment.’ It is important to remember that virtually every country in the world operates its own unique legal system. Persons who offer medical advice and treatment implicitly state that they have the skill and knowledge to do so, that they have the skill to decide whether to take a case, to decide the treatment, and to administer that treatment. This is known as an “implied undertaking” on the part of health care providers.

Civil Vs Criminal Negligence And Consumer Protection Act

Hospitals in India may be held liable for their services individually or vicariously. They can be charged with negligence and sued either in criminal/ civil courts or Consumer Courts. As litigations usually take a long time to reach their logical end in civil courts, medical services have been brought under the purview of Consumer Protection Act,1986 wherein the complainant can be granted compensation for deficiency in services within a stipulated time of 90 -150 days.Cases, which do not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (e.g., cases where treatment is routinely provided free of cost at non-government or government hospitals, health centers, dispensaries or nursing homes, etc.) can be taken up with criminal courts where the health care provider can be charged under Section 304-A IPC 4 for causing damages amounting to rash and negligent act or in Civil Courts where compensation is sought in lieu of the damage suffered, as the case may be.

Liability of Hospitals in Cases of Negligence

Hospitals liability with respect to medical negligence can be direct liability or vicarious liability. Direct liability refers to the deficiency of the hospital itself in providing safe and suitable environment for treatment as promised. Vicarious liability means the liability of an employer for the negligent act of its employees 5.

An employer is responsible not only for his own acts of commission and omission but also for the negligence of its employees, so long as the act occurs within the course and scope of their employment. This liability is according to the principle of ‘respondent superior’ meaning ‘let the master answer’. Employers are also liable under the common law principle represented in the Latin phrase, "qui facit per aliumfacit per se", i.e. the one who acts through another, acts in his or her own interests. This is a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability in which one person is held liable in Criminal Law or Tort for the acts or omissions of another. An exception to the above principle is ‘borrowed servant doctrine’ according to which the employer is not responsible for negligent act of one of its employee when that employee is working under direct supervision of another superior employee [e.g. Where a surgeon employed in one hospital visits another hospital for the purpose of conducting a surgery, the second hospital where the surgery was performed would be held liable for the acts of the surgeon]. Other circumstances, it has to be voluntary, i.e., with the knowledge and express written consent of the person as it is necessary to respect the individual’s need to maintain confidentiality 8. Hospitals can be charged with negligence for transmission of infection including HIV, HBsAg, etc. if any patient develops such infection during the course of treatment in the hospital and it is proved that the same has occurred on account of lapse on part of the hospital. As applicable to any other organization, hospitals too cannot blanketly refuse to give employment on the basis of an individual’s HIV status.

It depends on what job a particular person is to be employed for. A sero-positive individual can be employed if there is no question of him/her coming in contact with patients or procedures that can result in spread of infection. If any person on the rolls of a hospital is found to be sero positive or develops AIDS, the hospital should review that person’s staff privileges and determine whether or not the medical condition interferes with the persons’ ability to perform on the job and whether the condition creates a health risk to the patients.

 The Centre for Disease Control [CDC] although does not advise that HIV positive individuals be routinely restricted from performing surgery, it does recommend that the restrictions be determined on a case by case basis. The employee could be given other duties in the hospital that involves lesser degree of direct patient care or could be required to use extra safety precautions while dealing with patients. There is no generally accepted medical evidence that HIV can be transmitted through normal day to day contact in typical private workplace setting.

The CDC has issued guidelines that recognize that, with the exception of health care workers and personal service workers who use instruments that pierce skin, no testing or restriction is indicated for workers known to be infected with HIV but otherwise is able to perform their jobs. If any hospital does not follow the guidelines and there results an infection of the patient, it can be held directly responsible for negligence 8. Misleading signboards, prescription slips and advertisements of hospitals can be construed as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and damages can be awarded for such practices. Wrong claims of availability of certain facilities like some hospitals claiming in their sign boards/ prescription slips that 24 hr emergency services are available in their setup but in fact they lack basic emergency facilities like services of a doctor round the clock, necessary equipment in working order, intensive care facilities etc. construes negligence. Wrong depiction of qualifications of doctor like MD [Gyn.] against a doctor’s name creating an impression and misleading the patients that the doctor possesses PG degree in Gynecology whereas it was obtained from Germany and was equivalent to MBBS as per rules of MCI may also be construed as negligence [1993 (1) CPR 422 (NCDRC)]. Claiming guaranteed results for operative procedures that do not give desired outcome also amount to negligence.

Vicarious Liability

A hospital can be held vicariously liable on numerous grounds on different occasions. Several High Court Judgments have held hospitals vicariously liable for damages caused to the patients by negligent act of their staff. In one judgment of the Kerala High Court in Joseph @ Pappachan v. Dr. George Moonjerly [1994 (1) KLJ 782 (Ker. HC)], in support of the following effect stated that ‘persons who run hospital are in law under the same duty as the humblest doctor: whenever they accept a patient for treatment, they must use reasonable care and skill to ease him of his ailment. The hospital authorities cannot, of course, do it by themselves; they have no ears to listen to the stethoscope, and no hands to hold the surgeon’s scalpel.

They must do it by the staff which they employ; and if their staffs are negligent in giving treatment, they are just as liable for that negligence as anyone else who employs other to do his duties for him. In another judgment by the Madras High Court in Aparna Dutta v. Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. [2002 ACJ 954 (Mad. HC)], it was held that it was the hospital that was offering the medical services. The terms under which the hospital employs the doctors and surgeons are between them but because of this it cannot be stated that the hospital cannot be held liable so far as third party patients are concerned. It is expected from the hospital, to provide such a medical service and in case where there is deficiency of service or in cases, where the operation has been done negligently without bestowing normal care and caution, the hospital also must be held liable and it cannot be allowed to escape from the liability by stating that there is no master-servant relationship between the hospital, and the surgeon who performed the operation. The hospital is liable in case of established negligence and it is no more a defense to say that the surgeon is not a servant employed by the hospital, etc.

In another judgment by the National Consumer Redressal Commission in case of Smt. Rekha Gupta v. Bombay Hospital Trust &Anr.[2003 (2) CPJ 160 (NCDRC)], related to negligence of a consultant doctor, the Commission observed that the hospital who employed all of them whatever the rules were, has to own up for the conduct of its employees. It cannot escape liability by mere statement that it only provided infrastructural facilities, services of nursing staff, supporting staff and technicians and that it cannot suo moto perform or recommend any operation/ amputation. Any bill including consultant doctor’s consultation fees are raised by the hospital on the patient and it deducts 20% commission while remitting fees to the consultant. Whatever be the outcome of the case, hospital cannot disown their responsibility on these superficial grounds. The hospital authorities are not only responsible for their nursing and other staff, doctors, etc. but also for the anesthetists and surgeons, who practice independently but admit/ operate a case. It does not matter whether they are permanent or temporary, resident or visiting consultants, whole or part time. The hospital authorities are usually held liable for the negligence occurring at the level of any of such personnel. Where an operation is being performed in a hospital by a consultant surgeon who was not in employment of the hospital and negligence occurred, it has been held that it was the hospital that was offering medical services.
 The terms under which the defendant hospital employs the doctors and surgeons are between them but because of this it cannot be stated that the hospital cannot be held liable so far as third1986 and damages can be awarded for such practices. Wrong claims of availability of certain facilities like some hospitals claiming in their sign boards/ prescription slips that 24 hr emergency services are available in their setup but in fact they lack basic emergency facilities like services of a doctor round the clock, necessary equipment in working order, intensive care facilities etc. construes negligence. Wrong depiction of qualifications of doctor like MD [Gyn.] against a doctor’s name creating an impression and misleading the patients that the doctor possesses PG degree in Gynecology whereas it was obtained from Germany and was equivalent to MBBS as per rules of MCI may also be construed as negligence [1993 (1) CPR 422 (NCDRC)]. Claiming guaranteed results for operative procedures that do not give desired outcome also amount to negligence.

Vicarious liability a hospital can be held vicariously liable on numerous grounds on different occasions. Several High Court Judgments have held hospitals vicariously liable for damages caused to the patients by negligent act of their staff. In one judgment of the Kerala High Court in Joseph @ Pappachan v. Dr. George Moonjerly [1994 (1) KLJ 782 (Ker. HC)], in support of the following effect stated that ‘persons who run hospital are in law under the same duty as the humblest doctor: whenever they accept a patient for treatment, they must use reasonable care and skill to ease him of his ailment. The hospital authorities cannot, of course, do it by themselves; they have no ears to listen to the stethoscope, and no hands to hold the surgeon’s scalpel. They must do it by the staff which they employ; and if their staffs are negligent in giving treatment, they are just as liable for that negligence as anyone else who employs other to do his duties for him. In another judgment by the Madras High Court in Aparna Dutta v. Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. [2002 ACJ 954 (Mad. HC)], it was held that it was the hospital that was offering the medical services. The terms under which the hospital employs the doctors and surgeons are between them but because of this it cannot be stated that the hospital cannot be held liable so far as third party patients are concerned. It is expected from the hospital, to provide such a medical service and in case where there is deficiency of service or in cases, where the operation has been done negligently without bestowing normal care and caution, the hospital also must be held liable and it cannot be allowed to escape from the liability by stating that there is no master-servant relationship between the hospital, and the surgeon who performed the operation.

The hospital is liable in case of established negligence and it is no more a defense to say that the surgeon is not a servant employed by the hospital, etc. In another judgment by the National Consumer Redressal Commission in case of Smt. Rekha Gupta v. Bombay Hospital Trust & Anr.[2003 (2) CPJ 160 (NCDRC)], related to negligence of a consultant doctor, the Commission observed that the hospital who employed all of them whatever the rules were, has to own up for the conduct of its employees. It cannot escape liability by mere statement that it only provided infrastructural facilities, services of nursing staff, supporting staff and technicians and that it cannot suo moto perform or recommend any operation/ amputation. Any bill including consultant doctor’s consultation fees are raised by the hospital on the patient and it deducts 20% commission while remitting fees to the consultant. Whatever be the outcome of the case, hospital cannot disown their responsibility on these superficial grounds.

 The hospital authorities are not only responsible for their nursing and other staff, doctors, etc. but also for the anesthetists and surgeons, who practice independently but admit/ operate a case. It does not matter whether they are permanent or temporary, resident or visiting consultants, whole or part time. The hospital authorities are usually held liable for the negligence occurring at the level of any of such personnel. Where an operation is being performed in a hospital by a consultant surgeon who was not in employment of the hospital and negligence occurred, it has been held that it was the hospital that was offering medical services. The terms under which the defendant hospital employs the doctors and surgeons are between them but because of this it cannot be stated that the hospital cannot be held liable so far as third party patients are concerned. The patients go and get themselves admitted in the hospital relying on the hospital to give them medical services for which they pay the necessary fee. It is expected from the hospital, to provide such medical service and in case where there is deficiency of service or in cases like this where the operation has been done negligently without bestowing normal care and caution, the hospital must also be held liable.

Conclusion
The complex legal relationship between hospitals, doctors and paramedical staff leads to issues, which the courts find difficult to resolve. However, certain trends have emerged in modern medicine:
1. There is a need to provide competent care based on a national standard.
2. Competent care is no longer predicated on ‘locality rules’. The state has to intervene with statutes and regulations to ensure that a ‘standard’ of practice is established in hospitals.
3. The hospital has both a vicarious as well as an inherent duty of care (corporate obligation) toits patients.
4. The statutory regulations result in doctors being involved directly in setting of standards. This brings a separate liability upon the doctors independent of their professional liability.
5. There is a demand not only for establishing initial standards of care, but for continuous monitoring of these standards and proactive measures to ensure that they are updated.

A Brief Note On Promissory Note

The sum of money promised to be paid must be certain and definite amount. The law relating to ‘Negotiable Instruments’ in a Bills of Exchange Act, is codified in the commonwealth. Almost all jurisdictions, including in New Zealand, UK, Mauritius, codified the law as to negotiable Instruments. In India, The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 came into force. To understand the meaning of negotiable instrument, it is suffice to say that it means a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to bearer. During the Renaissance, Promissory note was in use in Europe. Later, during 20th century, the instrument changed substantially both in use and form and certain claused were added. History of Promissory note: Common prototypes of bills of exchanges and promissory notes originated in China. Here, in the 8th century during the reign of the Tang Dynasty they used special instruments called feitsyan for the safe transfer of money over long distances.[1] Later such document for money transfer used by Arab merchants, who had used the prototypes of bills of exchange – suftadja and hawala in 10–13th centuries, then such prototypes had used by Italian merchants in the 12th century. In Italy in 13–15th centuries bill of exchange and promissory note obtain their main features and further phases of its development have been associated with France (16–18th centuries, where the endorsement had appeared) and Germany (19th century, formalization of Exchange Law). In England (and later in the U.S.) Exchange Law was different from continental Europe because of different legal systems Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: "Promissory note".- A "promissory note" is an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currency-note) containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument. To understand the term word ‘promissory note’ clearly, it is apt to refer the following ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Bolisetti Bhavannarayana @ ... vs Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant ... ;1996 (1) ALD Cri 530, 1996 (1) ALT 917; Bench: K Agarwal, V R Reddy, N S Reddy; in this case , the following question came for consideration. Whether the suit document is a Promissory Note? If not, what is its nature? To answer this question, it was held as follows: ‘ As to the first question, we may remind ourselves of the fact that the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (in short, the "Stamp Act"), levies stamp duty on various documents at varying rates and, therefore, it becomes necessary first to determine the nature of any document before deciding the question of proper stamp duty payable on such document. Accordingly the definition of a 'bond' or a 'promissory note' as given in the Stamp Act alone is material for the purpose of determination of the nature of any document. Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act defines 'promissory note' as follows: "Promissory note" means a promissory note as defined by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; "It also includes a note promissing the payment of any sum of money out of any particular fund which may or may not be available, or upon any condition or contingency which may or may not be performed or happen." In the context of this definition of "promissory note" given in Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act, the definition of the term as given in Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 assumes importance. Section 4 of the latter act defines "promissory note" as follows: "A 'promissory note' is an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currency-note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument. Illustrations A signs instruments in the following terms: (a) "I promise to pay B or order Rs. 500." (b) "I acknowledge myself to be indebted to B in Rs. 1,000, to be paid on demand, for value received." (c) "Mr. B, I.O.U. Rs. 1,000". (d) "I promise to pay B Rs. 500, and all other sums which shall be due to him." (e) "I promise to pay B Rs. 500, first deducting thereout any money which he may owe me." (f) "I promise to pay B Rs. 500 seven days after my marriage with C." (g) "I promise to pay B Rs. 500 on D's death, provided D leaves me enough to pay that sum." (h) "I promise to pay B Rs. 500 and to deliver to him my black horse on 1st January next." The instruments respectively marked (a) and (b) are promissory notes. The instruments respectively marked (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) are not promissory notes." This definition of promissory note itself indicates that there may be several types of promissory notes. Out of these various categories of promissory notes, some may be treated as 'negotiable instrument' within the meaning of Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and some others may not be so treated, but by that very fact, the nature of the document will not change, if it is otherwise a promissory note. In other words, if a document is a 'promissory note' within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act, it will continue to be 'promissory note', whether it comes or does not come within the meaning of the term 'negotiable instrument' as defined in Section 13 of the Act. For this reason, were are of the view that Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, or the definition of the term 'negotiable instrument' is wholly irrelevant when it comes to deciding the nature of a particular document as a promissory note, or otherwise. Similarly and for similar reasons, it is wholly irrelevant to refer to the provisions of Section 13 of the Act while deciding the nature of any document as a 'bond' or otherwise. Accordingly anything to the contrary held in any of the authorities referred to in the orders of reference is not a good law.’ Promissory note is not a compulsorily attestable document: Genearally no attestors are necessary to execute a promissory note. In Chandabolu Bhaskara Rao’s case, the Honble High Court of A.P held that ‘Since promissory note is not a compulsorily attestable document, even if the signatures of the attestors are taken, after its execution it does not amount the material alteration, and so it does not get vitiated. Therefore, whether there were attestors or not at the time of its execution is immaterial, more so when its execution is admitted. The Hon’ble Full Bench Judgment of Madras High Court reported in Hariram v. I.T. Commissioner, (F.B.). In this case the following document was under consideration, which reads as follows: "Promissory note executed on 14-6-1947 in favour of Arunachala Chettiar, son of Kolakkara Chettiar residing at Palappudi Village, hamlet of Sathyamangammal, Gingi Taluk by Kuppuswami Chettiar, son of Venkatachala Chettiar, residing at the aforesaid village. In respect of the sum received from you at Tiruvannamalai by me in the year 1943 and given for opening a Javuli shop by T. Arunachala Iyer the sum found due to you is Rs. 3,000. As this sum of rupees three thousand had to be paid to you, I shall pay the same together with interest at Rs. 0-4-0 per month per Rs. 100 in six equal instalments, and discharge the same. To this effect is the promissory note executed by me with my consent." Their Lordships held that the document in question is not a promissory note, because there is no unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum of money. The distinction between the promissory note and hundi or bill of exchange is explained by his lordship Vradachariar, J., in these words : "But where the borrower gives his own promissory note as part of the loan transaction, it seems to me artificial to treat that every ' promise to pay ' obtained in that note as amounting to a payment, and then to seek to import the theory of ' conditional ' payment. " If Promissory Note Is In-Admissible- Remedy: 1). "1. Whether a plaintiff can bring action for recovery of the amount advanced by him basing on the original consideration when the promissory note on foot of which action is brought is in-admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, and, if so, under what circumstances ? 2. If the promissory note is in-admissible in evidence, whether action can be maintained for recovery of the amount either on the theory of " money had and received " or under the provisions of Section 70 of the Contract Act. " 2). The question referred to the Hon’bel Bench of seven Judges by a Division Bench to which two of their lordships Obul Reddi and Madhava Reddy, JJ. were members, is "Whether a plaintiff can lay action for recovery of the amount advanced by him basing on the original cause of action when the negotiable instrument evidencing the transaction is inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. " The necessity to refer the question to a larger Bench arose as a result of the view expressed by Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. ( as he then was ) in Mohd. Jamal Saheb v. Munnar Begum, , which does not accord with the ruling of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Perumal Chettiar v. Kamakshi Ammal, ILR ( 1938 ) Mad 933 = ( AIR 1938 Mad 785 ( FB ) ). The learned Judge, Gopal Rao Ekbote, held that the plaintiff can have his money back through the document is in-admissible in evidence because it is in-sufficiently stamped and that Section 91 of the Evidence Act is no bar to the plaintiff succeeding on a non-contractual basis, that is, in an action for money had and received. In so coming to the conclusion, the learned Judge seems to have felt that he is not bound by the decision of the Full Bench in ILR ( 1938 ) Mad 933 = ( AIR 1938 Mad 785 ( FB ) as " two decisions decided in 1918 by the Privy Council ( John v. Dodwell and Co. Ltd. AIR 1918 PC 241 and Juscurn Boid v. Prithichandlal, AIR 1918 PC 151 ) were not brought to the notice of the Full Bench ". Having regard to the fact that the High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay and some other High Courts have taken a view different from that expressed by the Full Bench of five Judges of the Madras High Court in ILR ( 1938 ) Mad 933 ( 935 ) = ( AIR 1938 Mad 785 ( FB ) the question posed above was referred for consideration by a larger Bench. Promissory Note Requires Proper Stamp Duty: Venkatasubbaiah v. Bhushayya, 1963 (1) An.WR (NRC) 31. That was a case in which the Hon’ble High Court of A.P considered the fact of Section 35 of the Stamp Act. It held that the promissory executed in other State was liable for stamp duty in the State where it was produced, and for not paying necessary stamp duty, the document would be inadmissible. For such a contingency Section 19 of the Indian Stamp Act would apply. According to this Section, promissory note drawn or made out of India shall, before it is presented for acceptance or payment or endorses, transfers or otherwise negotiate in India, affix thereto the proper stamp and cancel the same. Prima facie the said section would not apply to the promissory note executed in India, and any promissory note executed in one State may be presented in any other State in India with the stamp bearing on the promissory note, no additional stamp duty need be paid. Section 19 contemplates that a promissory note drawn out of India and used in India or any State, it requires proper stamp duty as per Indian Law. Recommendations For Amending Section 35 Of The Stamp Act, 1899 I deem that it is not out scope to see 178th Report of the Law Commission of India, as to recommendations for amending section 35 of the Stamp Act , 1899 & ‘bills of exchange on promissory notes’. The relevant portion of the report reads as follows: Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 & ‘Bills of exchange on promissory notes’: The opening part of sec. 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 provides as follows: ‘No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authorized to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless the instrument is duly stamped’. Clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to the above sec. 35 contain provisions which permit the instrument to be used as evidence upon payment of the stamp duty in full (where it is unstamped) or upon payment of the deficient stamp duty (where there is deficiency in the stamp duty ) and the proviso permits the collection of penalty up to a maximum of ten times the stamp duty or the deficiency, as the case may be. Levy of penalty is of course discretionary However, clause (a) of sec. 35 does not permit the validation of the instrument as stated above, in the case of ‘a bill of exchange or promissory note’. The result is that while in regard to all other instruments there is a procedure prescribed for subsequent validation of the instrument by collection of the stamp duty or penalty, such a procedure is not available in the case of “bills of exchange and promissory notes”. Even if the party who wants to use it as evidence is prepared to pay the stamp duty and penalty, he is not allowed to do so, so far as these instruments are concerned. The document become ‘waste paper’. On account of this rigid procedure applied only to “bills of exchange and promissory notes”, several debtors are allowed to escape liablility unjustly. The Indian courts have also not been able to render justice in such cases where one party relies upon a “bill of exchange or promissory note” which is not stamped or is deficiently stamped. In addition, the provisions of sec. 91 of the Evidence Act also come in the way and preclude oral evidence being adduced in such cases. This is clear from illustration (b) below section 91 of the Evidence Act. These disabilities have led to a large volume litigation in courts. The Privy Council, the Supreme Court and the High Court have declared their helplessness in getting over these provisions of sec. 35 in so far as they disable validation of “bills of exchange and promissory notes”. The result is that these instruments are not allowed to be used as evidence ‘for any purpose’. In one novel case in the Andhra Pradesh High Court during the time when our currency shifted from the old system of “rupees, annas and paise” to the present system of ‘naya-paise’, a promissory note which had to bear a stamp duty of 4 annas under the Stamp Act was executed on a document bearing stamp duty of ‘twenty four’ naya-paise on the undertaking that each anna was equal to six naya paise. But, under the new system, the correct equivalent of 4 annas was 25 paise, and the suit was dismissed on the ground of deficiency of stamp duty of one naya paisa. The law never changed. In fact, a special bench of seven Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in L. Sambasivarao vs. Balakotaiah AIR 1973 AP 343 (FB) affirmed an earlier judgment of five Judges of the Madras High Court in Perumal Chettiar vs. Kamakshi Ammal (AIR 1938 Mad 785 (FB)). The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is exhaustive and refers to the entire cased law on the subject. In fact it refers to 133 decisions of various courts. The question is whether this injustice which is the result of the Act of 1899 is to be remedied by enabling the deficiency to be paid, with or without penalty, as may be decided by the competent authority. In some cases, courts invented various theories to grant relief, by holding that the ‘bill of exchange or promissory note’ was a collateral security or that it did not contain all the terms of the contract and therefore sec. 91 of the Evidence Act could not exclude oral evidence. In some other cases, Courts have stated that there could be an action on the debt. However, whenever such pleas of inadmissibility are raised, there is unending litigation and uncertainty. A party would not know if any such plea would ultimately be accepted for getting over the rigid posture of sec. 35 of the Stamp Act and the equally strict rule in sec. 91 of the Evidence Act. In our view, justice to those who have parted with money under a bill of exchange or a promissory note, requires that this provision in sec. 35 be deleted and that the procedure for paying up the stamp duty or penalty, is made applicable to these instruments also. That will further augment the revenues of the State. Such a procedure will also eliminate unnecessary disputes as to whether the plaint can be amended by permitting the plaintiff to sue on the debt and also eliminate disputes as to admissibility of oral evidence. The Commission, after due consideration of various aspects, namely, rendering justice to those who have parted with money, the benefit that will accrue to the State by way of collection of stamp duty or penalty, and elimination of unnecessary disputes, is of the considered view that in the proviso (a) of sec. 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899, the words “any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable with a duty not exceeding ten naya paise only, or a bill of exchange or promissory note, shall subject to all just exceptions be admitted in evidence”, the words “any such instrument shall be admitted in evidence”, shall be substituted It is also proposed to give limited retrospective operation to this amendment in all cases where proceedings before the courts or authorities referred to under sec. 35 have not reached. Scope of The Presumption: Burden Of Proof In Promissory Note Cases: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kundan Lal Rallaram v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay [AIR 1961 SC 1316], speaking through his lordship K. Subba Rao, J. considering the scope of the presumption had laid down the law thus: "Section 118 lays down a special rule of evidence applicable to negotiable instruments. The presumption is one of law and thereunder a court shall presume, inter alia, that the negotiable or endorsed for Consideration. In effect it throws the burden of proof of failure of consideration on the maker of the note or the endorser, as the case may be. The phrase "burden of proof" has two meanings- One, the burden of proof as a matter of law and pleading and the other the burden of establishing a case; the former is fixed as a question of law on the basis of the pleading and so unchanged during the entire trial whereas the latter is not constant but shifted as soon as a party adduces sufficient evidence to raise a presumption in his favour. The evidence required to shift the burden need not necessarily be directed evidence or admissions made by opposite party; it may comprise circumstantial evidence or presumptions of law or fact. A plaintiff who says that he had sold certain goods to the defendant and that a promissory note was executed as consideration for the goods and that he is in possession of the relevant account books to show that he was in possession of the goods sold and that the sale was reflected for a particular consideration should produce the said account books. If such a relevant evidence is withheld by the plaintiff, S.114, Evidence Act enables the Court to draw a presumption to the effect that, if produced, the said accounts would be unfavourable to the plaintiff. This presumption, if raised by a court, can under certain circumstances rebut the presumption of law raised under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act." ‘ In Haribhavandas Parasaran and Co. v. A.D. Thakur A.I.R. 1963 Mys. 107, it was held that- It is mandatory that the presumption under Section 118(a) should be made until the contrary is proved. The fact that the nature of the consideration as recited in the negotiable instrument is different from that alleged in the plaint may have to be considered by the Court at a later stage, along with the entire evidence in this case, while determining whether the contrary to the statutory presumption has been proved. But, the mere existence of such a fact would not, by itself, be a justification for the Court to disregard Section 118 and frame an issue casting burden on the plaintiff to prove the consideration for a negotiable instrument, the execution of which has been admitted. The burden should still be on the defendant to prove want of consideration.’ In Kundanlal v. Custodian, Evacuee Property , it was observed ‘With particular reference to Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument's Act, the Supreme Court observed thus: As soon as the execution is proved, Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposes a duty on the Court to raise a presumption in his favour that the said instrument was made for consideration. This presumption shifts the burden of proof in the second sense, that is, the burden of establishing a case shifts to the defendant. The defendant may adduce direct evidence to prove that the promissory note was not supported by consideration, and if, he adduced acceptable evidence, the burden again shifts to the plaintiff and so on. The defendant may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again to the plaintif’. In Alex Mathew v. Philips a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had occasion to consider the same question and the Bench held- The true principle where different cases have been pleaded and evidence has been let in, in support of both these sets of cases, is that the entire evidence in the case adduced by the plaintiff and the defendant and the findings entered by the Court or which are to be altered by the Court as well as the presumptions of law and fact which have to be drawn from all the facts established and attendant circumstances must be looked into as a whole to find out whether the presumption under Section 118(a) of the Act has been rebutted or not. It would not be correct merely on the basis of the finding negativing the case of the plaintiff regarding consideration to hold that the presumption under Section 118(a) has been rebutted. In Palaniappa Chettiar v. Rajagopalan A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 773. a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that where the recital of the consideration in the pro-note is admittedly false, the burden of proving consideration is shifted on to the holder of the promissory note as against the maker of the note himself and much stronger, therefore, would be the case when the consideration has to be proved against third parties. In G. Venkata Reddi v. Nagi Reddi . Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., in dealing with a similar question with reference to the burden of proof when the recital in the negotiable instrument regarding consideration is not made out, (where the recital in the promissory note was that consideration was paid, but in the plaint it was pleaded that the consideration was lease amount, that was due from the defendant) held that the decision in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Rajagopalan A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 773. would prevail, as otherwise it will cause serious injustice. To know more about the history of promissory note, the following rulings may be helpful to have a clear idea. 1. Mohd. Jamal Saheb v. Munnar Begum, , which does not accord with the ruling of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Perumal Chettiar v. Kamakshi Ammal, ILR ( 1938 ) Mad 933 = ( AIR 1938 Mad 785 ( FB ) ). 2. The decision of the Full Bench in ILR ( 1938 ) Mad 933 = ( AIR 1938 Mad 785 ( FB ) as " two decisions decided in 1918 by the Privy Council ( John v. Dodwell and Co. Ltd. AIR 1918 PC 241 and Juscurn Boid v. Prithichandlal, AIR 1918 PC 151 ) 3. The Full Bench of five Judges of the Madras High Court in ILR ( 1938 ) Mad 933 ( 935 ) = ( AIR 1938 Mad 785 ( FB ) 4. Pithi Reddy v. Velayudasivan, ( 1885-1887 ) ILR 10 Mad 94 and Perumal Chettiar's case, ILR ( 1938 ) Mad 933 = ( AIR 1938 Mad 785 ( FB ) ) 5. The Full Bench in Perumal Chettiar's case. ILR ( 1938 ) Mad 933 = AIR 1938 Mad 785 (FB) 6. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Perumal Chettiar's case. ILR (1938) Mad 933 = AIR 1938 Mad 785 ( FB ), is not correct and the decision requires to be overruled. 7. In Perumal Chettiar's case. ILR (1938) Mad 933 = AIR 1938 Mad 785 (FB) it was the third view that was expressed by the Full Bench. 8. Sheikh Khan, (1881) ILR 7 Cal 256, 9. Golap Chund Marwaree v. Thakurani Mohokoom Kooaree. (1878) ILR 3 Cal 314 10. Pramatha Natha Sandal v. Dwarka Nath Dey. (1896) ILR 23 Cal 851, 11. That opinion of Petheram. C.J., was based on what is stated in Farr v. Price, (1800) 1 East 55 = 102 ER 22 viz. That the existence of an unstamped promissory note does not debar the plaintiff from recovering on the original consideration if the pleadings are properly framed for that purpose. 12. In Indra Chandra v. Hiralal Rong. AIR 1936 Cal 127 and Mahatobuddin Mia v. Md, Nazir Joddar AIR 1936 Cal 170 R.C.Mitter. J., sitting single, held that it is not necessary that there should be an independent express contract prior to the execution of such a promissory note and that the fact that the money has been lent implies a promise to repay it and the plaintiff in such a case has a cause of action on the implied promise, which is independent of the promissory note. 13. Firm Tarachand v. Tamijuddin, AIR 1935 Cal 658 where he said that if the plaintiff's cause of action to recover the money had become complete before the execution of the promissory note, he would be entitled to sue and succeed on the original: but if he does not base his case in the plaint on the original consideration, he is out of Court because the promissory note is inadmissible in evidence being insufficiently stamped. 14. The Privy Council in Sadasuk Janki Das v. Sir Kishen Pershad, SIR 1918 PC 146 and followed the decision in Sheik Akbar v. Sheikh Khan, (1881) ILR 7 Cal 256 and Nazir Khan, v. Raz Mohan, AIR 1931 ALL 185 (FB). His view in the 1935 case was that if the execution of the promissory note and the borrowing of the money are contemporaneous constituting part and parcel of the same transaction and the note becomes inadmissible in evidence the plaintiff will be out of Court. The learned Judge with great respect to him seemed to swing between the two stands taken by the two Chief Justices of his Court. 15. Krishnaji Narayan Parkhi v. Rajamal Manikchand Marwari, (1900) ILR 24 Bom 360 was dealing with a case of liability arising out of a hundi. 16. Chenbasapa v. Lakshman Ramachandra, (1894) ILR 18 Bom 369. Where the distinction between cases in which the suit is brought solely on the note or hundi and cases in which there is and can be a claim to recover the original loan has been acknowledged. 17. Jacob 7 Co.v. Vicumsey. AIR 1927 Bom 437, followed the decision in (1900) ILR 24 Bom 360 on the ground that it is binding upon him, in holding that if the promissory note is insufficiently stamped the plaintiff can proceed with the suit on the loan. 18. As the latest opinion of the Allahabad High Court as expressed in AIR 1943 All 220 and is in conflict with the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Perumal Chettiar's case, ILR ( 1938 ) Mad 933 = ( AIR 1938 Mad 785 ) ( FB ) 19. ( 1882 ) ILR 4 All 330, it was observed that :"Much though we might have wished to be able to hold that the bond entered into between the parties did not preclude the plaintiff-appellant from recovering on his account stated, we find ourselves unable to do so. " 20. Ram Sarup v. Jasodha Kunwar, ( 1912 ) ILR 34 All 158 which runs counter to the above view was rested on the dictum of Lord Kenyon in the well-known case of (1800) 1 East 55 = 102 ER 21. Banarasi Prasad v. Fazl Ahmad, (1906) ILR 28 All 298, though purported to follow the case of (1881) ILR 7 Cal 256 22. Baijnath Das v. Salig Ram, (1912) 16 Ind Cas 33 (All) 23. AIR 1929 All 254 and the view expressed by the learned Judges was quoted and endorsed by Sir Lionel Leach, C. J. in Perumal Cettiar's case, ILR (1938) Mad 933 = (AIR 1938 Mad 785) (FB) to the extent of the scope of Section 91 of the Evidence Act. 24. Baijanath Das's case (1912) 16 1nd Cas 33 (ALL) 25. AIR 1931 ALL 183 (FB) overruled the decisions in (1912) ILR 34 AII158 and (1906) ILR 28 AII 293 referred to supra and followed the decisions Parsotham Narain v. Taley Singh, (1903) ILR 26 AII 178 and Sheikh Akbar v. Sheikh Khan. (1882) ILR 7 Cal 256. 26. Miyan Bux v. Mt. Bodhiya, AIR 1928 AII 371 (SB). 27. A Full Bench of five Judges in AIR 1943 All 220 ( FB ). 28. A Full Bench of the Oudh High Court consisting of Wazir Hasan, C. J. Srivastava and Raza, JJ. However, took a different view from the one expressed in AIR 1931 All 183 ( FB ) 29. The Full Bench case in AIR 1943 All220. 30. The Full Bench decision in AIR 1921 All 183 ( FB ) required reconsideration. 31. Maung Chit v. Roshan and Co., AIR 1934 Rang 339 = ILR 12 Rang 500 ( FB ). He, however, found himself unable to agree with the 4th and 6th propositions of Sir Arthur Page C. J. ( which were endorsed by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court ) on the ground that he ( Page C. J. ) did not correctly state the law. 32. Ram Bahadur v. Dasuri Ram, ( 1913 ) 17 Cal LJ 399. 33. Mohd. Akbar Khan v. Attar Singh, 1936 All LJ 986 = AIR 1936 PC 171. 34. A division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in following the Full Bench decision in AIR 1943 All 220 ( FB) 35. The Full Bench decision, the question can scarcely be regarded as settled ; ( Dhaneshwar Sahu v. Ramrup Gir, ILR 7 Pat 845 = ( AIR 1928 Pat 426) where Macpherson, J., concerned only on the ground of stare decisis. 36. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Sarajoo Prasad v. Rampawari Devi. considered the question whether every loan carried with it a contract to repay and if so, it was open to the plaintiff to bring a suit on the original consideration of the handnote. 37. Udaram Mangiram v. Laxman Marwari, AIR 1927 Nag 241 held that even though the promissory note becomes inadmissible in evidence for want of proper stamp, the creditor can fall back on the original transaction under Section 70 of the Contract Act treating the promissory note as non-existent and ask for refund of the consideration paid. This decision supports the view of the learned Judge in , but runs counter to the Madras Full Bench view in Perumal Chettiar's case. ILR (1938) Mad 933 = AIR 1938 Mad 785 (FB). 38. Gulam Mohad. Labroo v. Habib Ullah. AIR 1966 J & K 127. After an elaborate review of the cases expressing divergent views, disagreed with the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in AIR 1943 AII 220 (FB). 39. K. Anantharajaiah v. Shivaramaiah. AIR 1968 Mts 148 40. The Full Bench decision of the Rangoon High Court in AIR 1934 Rang 389 = ILR 12 Rang 500 (FB) which was approved by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court. 41. When a loan is contracted it is an implied term of the agreement that the loan shall be repaid (1913) 41 1nd App 142 (PC) 42. When a promissory note or a bill of exchange or indeed anything else, is given by the narrower to the lender in connection with the loan, either at the time when the loan is contracted or afterwards, the terms upon which it is given and taken is a question of fact and not of law, (1889) 22 QBD 610. 43. Re Romer and Haslam, (1893) 2 QB 286 at p. 296 and Bowen. L.J. (Ibid. P. 300):Farr v. Price (1800) 1 East 55 = (102 ER 22) 44. Commr. Of Income-tax, Bombay v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., ( 1885-1887 ) ILR 10 Mad 94 and also the two of the cases in Gopala Padayachi v. Rajagopal Naidu, AIR 1926 Mad 1148 and Chinnayya Naidu v. Srinivasa Naidu, AIR 1935 Mad 206 = ( 67 ad LJ 912 ) which struck a different note were referred to in main judgment of Sir Lionel Leach, C. J., and in the judgment of Justice Varadachariar, Krishnasami v. Rangaswami, ( 1884 ) ILR 7 Mad 112 45. Pothireddy's case, ( 1885-1887 ) ILR 10 Mad 94, 46. Muthusastrigal v. Viswanatha, ILR 38 Mad 660 at p. 663 = ( AIR 1914 Mad 657 (2) ). 47. Dula Meah v. Abdul Rahaman, 28 Cal WN 70 = 81 Ind Cas 461 = ( AIR 1924 Cal 452 ), 48. The case of Brown v. Watts, ( 1808 ) 127 ER 870, 49. Re Romer & Haslam, ( 1893 ) 2 QB 286 50. Crowe v. Clay, ( 1854 ) V. 9 Exch 51. Payana Reena Saminathan v. Pana Lena Palaniappa, (1913 ) 41 Ind App 142 ( PC ) 52. Dargavarabu Sarrapu v. Rampratabu ( 1902 ) ILR 25 Mad 580 ( FB ) 53. Jambhu Chetty v. Palaniappa Chettiar ( 1903 ) ILR 26 Mad 526, 54. Palaniappa Chetty v. Arunachellam Chetty, ( 1911 ) 21 Mad LJ 432 55. Felix Hadley & Co. v. Hadley ( 1898 ) 2 Ch 680 and Lord Maugham in Rhokana Corpn. Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commrs. 1938 AC 380 observed at p. 433 : 56. Chitty on Contracts ( Twenty-third Edition ) 57. The book on Bills of Exchange ( Twenty-second Edition ) at page 392 : 58. Taylor on Evidence Vol. 1 P. 276 ( 12th Edition 59. The Madras High Court in AIR 1926 Mad 1148 and AIR 1935 Mad 206, which conflict with Pothi Reddy's case, ( 1885-1887 ) ILR 10 Mad 94, for those two decisions were referred to and overruled by the Full Bench. 60. Pothi Reddy's case ( 1885-1887 ) ILR 10 Mad 94, and Sheik Akbar v. Sheikh Khan, ( 1881 ) ILR 7 Cal 256 61. Chanda Singh v. Amritsar Banking Co., AIR 1922 Lah 307 62. Ram Jas v. Shahabuddin, AIR 1927 Lah 89. 63. Sohan Lal Nihal Chand v. Raghu Nath Singh, AIR 1934 Lah 606 64. Amin Chand v. Firm Madho Rao Banwari Lal, . 65. The two decisions of the Privy Council in AIR 1918 PC 241 and AIR 1918 PC 151 66. Sadasuk Janki Das's case, AIR 1918 PC 146 67. Three decisions of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. B. K. Mondal and Sons, ; New Marine Coal Co. v. Union of India,and Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 68. The case of a Royal Bank of Canada v. The King, 1913 AC 283, was an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta. The main controversy was as to the validity of the statute ( Alberta Act 1 Geo 5 C 9 ) passed in 1910, dealing with the sale of certain bonds. 69. Wilson v. Church, ( 1879 ) 13 Ch D 1 at p. 49, 70. Moses v. Macferlan, ( 1760 ) 97 ER 676 71. Sinclair v. Brougham, 1914 AC 72. see Smith's Leading Cases, Notes to Marriot v. Hampton, ( 1797 ) 7 TR 269 = 2 Sm LC ( 11th Ed. ) 421) 73. Brook's Wharf and Bull Wharf Ltd. V. Goodman Brothers, )1937 1 KB 534, 74. 1914 AC 398 by P.H. Wins-field in (1937) 53 LQR 447. 75. The case of Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbarin Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd., 1943 AC 32 ; 76. Lothamasu Sambasiva Rao vs Thadwarthi Balakotiah: AIR 1973 AP 342 Conclusion: This article does not give information as to all the aspects of promissory note, for instance, I did not touch on the aspect of material alterations of the promissory note, the plea of forgery, fabrication, ect.,. Inasmuch as there are catena of rulings on the ‘promissory note’, it is very difficult to discuss all the case-law. However, I attempted to put forth some rulings on this aspect. A close scrutiny and understanding the dicta observed in the above rulings, I am in no doubt to say our knowledge on the aspect of Promissory note will be enriched. There are certain amendments are needed as to section 35 of the stamp act, 1899 & ‘bills of exchange on promissory notes. It is not out scope to remember the words of Lord Atkin "Being primarily a receipt, even if coupled with the promise to pay, it was not a promissory note. As the document did not record or purport to record all the terms of the contract between the parties and as there was nothing in the document explaining how the money came to be received the parties were not prevented from showing that it was paid by way of loan or deposit or for some other purpose. ". **************** # Chandabolu Bhaskara Rao vs Betha Saidi Reddy; decided on 5 April, 2006 # Lothamasu Sambasiva Rao vs Thadwarthi Balakotiah ; AIR 1973 AP 342 # Law Commission of India; One hundred and seventy eighth report On recommendations for amending various enactments, Both civil and criminal.; December,2001 # Observed in K.P.O. Moideenkutty Hajee vs Pappu Manjooran & Anr ; JT 1996 (3), 329 1996 SCALE (2)784; Bench: Justice Ramaswamy, K. # In Kundanlal v. Custodian, Evacuee Property (1963) 1 S.C.J. 347 : (1963) 1 An.W.R. (S.C.) 85 : (1963) 1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 85 : A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1316.

Holidays in India in 2015

			National and regional public holidays of India in 2015 Day Date Holiday Comments Thursday January 01 New Years Day Arunachal pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Miizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu only Thursday January 01 New Years Day Public Sector. Telangana only Saturday January 03 Milad-un-Nabi Birthday of Prophet Muhammad Sunday January 04 Milad-un-Nabi Birthday of Prophet Muhammad. Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Telangana Monday January 05 Guru Govind Singh Jayanti Punjab only. Birthday of the tenth and final Sikh prophet-teacher Monday January 12 Birthday of Swami Vivekananda West Bengal only. Tuesday January 13 Bhogi Andhra Pradesh Only Wednesday January 14 Pongal Also known as Makar Sankranti, Lohri, Bihu, Hadaga, Poki Thursday January 15 Pongal Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Telangana Friday January 16 Thiruvalluvar Day Tamil Nadu only Saturday January 17 Uzhavar Tirunal Puducherry, Tamil Nadu only Wednesday January 21 Sonam Lhochar Sikkim only. Tamang New Year Friday January 23 Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Jayanti Assam, Odisha, Tripura, West Bengal. Birthday of a prominent leader in the Indian freedom movement Saturday January 24 Vasant Panchami Haryana, Odisha,Tripura, West Bengal only Saturday January 24 Sir Chhotu Ram Jayanti Haryana only Sunday January 25 Statehood Day Himachal Pradesh only Monday January 26 Republic Day Commemorates the establishment of the Constitution of India Tuesday February 03 Guru Ravidas Birthday Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab only Saturday February 14 Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati Jayanti Haryana only Tuesday February 17 Maha Shivratri Celebrated on the 13th night/14th day in the Krishna Paksha Thursday February 19 Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Jayanti Maharashtra (Mumbai) only Thursday February 19 Losar Sikkim only. Tibetan New Year Thursday March 05 Doljatra Holi Dahan. Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal only. Friday March 06 Holi Saturday March 21 Ugadi Telugu and Kannada New Year. Karnataka, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh. Monday March 23 Shaheedi Diwas of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru & Sukhdev Haryana only Saturday March 28 Ram Navami Celebrates the birth of Lord Rama to King Dasharatha of Ayodhya Thursday April 02 Mahavir Jayanti The most important religious holiday in Jainism Friday April 03 Good Friday Friday before Easter Sunday Sunday April 05 Babu Jagjivan Ram Birthday Andhra Pradesh only Monday April 13 Vaisakhi Haryana only Tuesday April 14 Dr Ambedkar Jayanti Birthday of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedekar Tuesday April 14 Tamil New Year Puthandu. Tamil Nadu only Tuesday April 14 Vaisakhi Haryana only Wednesday April 15 Himachal Day Himachal Pradesh only. The province of Himachal Pradesh was created on 15 April 1948 Wednesday April 15 Bengali New Year Tripura, West Bengal only Wednesday April 15 Vishu Kerala Only. First day of Tulu calendar Wednesday April 15 Babu Jagjivan Rams Birthday Telangana only. Monday April 20 Parashurama Jayanti Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh only Friday May 01 Maharashtra Day Maharashtra (Mumbai) only. Commemorates the formation of the state of Maharashtra on 1 May 1960 Friday May 01 May Day Assam, Bihar, Goa, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Manipur, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, West Bengal only Sunday May 03 Hazrat Alis Birthday Uttar Pradesh only. Son in law of Prophet Muhammad Monday May 04 Buddha Purnima Birth of Buddha Saturday May 09 Birthday of Rabindra Nath Tagore Tripura, West Bengal. A Bengali polymath who reshaped literature and music. Wednesday May 20 Maharana Pratap Jayanti Haryana, Himachal Pradesh only Tuesday June 02 Sant Guru Kabir Jayanti Gazetted holiday in Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab. Tuesday June 16 Arjun Dev Martyrdom day Punjab Only Friday July 10 Jumat-ul-Wida Last Friday of Ramadam Saturday July 18 Idul Fitr All states except Goa, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh Saturday August 15 Independence Day Monday August 17 Teej Haryana only Tuesday August 18 Parsi New Year Jamshed Navroz. Mumbai Only Thursday August 27 First Onam Kerala only. Harvest Festival Friday August 28 Thiruvonam Kerala only. Harvest Festival Saturday August 29 Raksha Bandhan Gujarat, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh only. Saturday September 05 Janmashtami Celebrates the birth of Lord Shri Krishna Thursday September 17 Ganesh Chaturthi Varasiddhi Vinayaka Vrata Monday September 21 Sree Narayana Guru Samadhi Kerala only. Marks the death of a key social reformer Wednesday September 23 Haryana's Heroes' Martyrdom Day Haryana only Thursday September 24 Idul Juha Bakrid. Friday September 25 Idul Juha Bakrid. Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Maharashtra Friday October 02 Mahatma Gandhi Birthday Gandhi Jayanti Monday October 12 Mahalaya Karnataka, Odisha, Tripura, West Bengal only. Tuesday October 13 Muharram Observed mainly by the Shia Muslim community Tuesday October 13 Maharaja Agrasen Jayanati Haryana only Tuesday October 20 Saptami of Durgapuja Tripura, West Bengal only Wednesday October 21 Ayudha Puja Karnataka, Tamil Nadu only Thursday October 22 Dussehra Vijaya Dashami. Except Kerala Thursday October 22 Mahanavami Kerala Only. Ninth Day of Dussehra Friday October 23 Vijaya Dashami Kerala only. Dussehra Friday October 23 Muharram Tamil Nadu only Saturday October 24 Muharram (10th Day) Day of Ashurah Tuesday October 27 Maharishi Valmiki Birthday Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab. Tuesday October 27 Lakshmi Puja Odisha, Tripura, West Bengal only. Sunday November 01 Kannada Rajyothsava Bangalore Only. Karnataka Formation Day Sunday November 01 Haryana Day Haryana only. Tuesday November 10 Deewali Deepawali. Except Delhi, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Telangana, West Bengal. Wednesday November 11 Kali Puja West Bengal only. Festival dedicated to the Hindu goddess Kali Wednesday November 11 Deewali Deepawali. Delhi, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Telangana Wednesday November 11 Diwali Laxmi Puja. Maharashtra Thursday November 12 Diwali Deepawali. Maharashtra Thursday November 12 Vishavkarma day Haryana only Wednesday November 25 Guru Nanak Birthday The Birthday of Guru Nanak Sahib, the founder of Sikhism, falls on full moon day of the month Kartik Thursday December 24 Milad-un-Nabi Birthday of Prophet Muhammad. Second time in 2015. Friday December 25 Christmas Day Saturday December 26 Shaheed Udham Singh's Birthday Haryana only