ချေးငွေရလိုမှုအကြောင်း(Part Two)

 ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ

ချေးငွေရလိုမှုအကြောင်း(Part Two)

——————————————————-

မြို့နယ်တရားရုံးတရုံးသည်၊မျက်မြင်သက်သေများ၏နှုတ်သက်သေခံချက်ကိုမဆင်ခြင်ဘဲ၊မြီရှင်တရားလိုအားအရှုံးပေးသည်ကိုတွေ့ရသဖြင့်၊ချေးငွေရလိုမှုစီရင်ထုံးသမိုင်းကိုရေးပြသင့်သည်ဟုသဘောရခဲ့သည်။

———————————————————

မြန်မာနိုင်ငံ၌အစောဆုံးစီရင်ထုံးဖြစ်သည်ဟုယူဆရသော-

၁၈၉၈ခုနှစ်၊မေလ(၂၇)ရက်နေ့၌ချမှတ်သည့်စီရင်ချက်ကိုထုံးပြုသည့်-

1897-1901

2 UBR 390

MAUNG HLAW vs. NAGASSAT.

Before H. Thirkell White, Esq., C.I.E.

အမှုတွင်၊အောက်ပါအတိုင်းထုံးဖွဲ့သည်-

“The respondent obtained a decree against the applicant for the recovery of a debt alleged to be due on a promissory note.

The note was not proved, but independent(သီးခြား)evidence of the obligation(တာဝန်)was admitted.

It was urged that evidence apart(မှအပ)from the promissory note was inadmissible.

Held, - On the authority of the cases reported in I. L. R., 3 Cal., 314, and I. L.R., 23 Cal., 851, that independent evidence of the obligation was admissible.”

စီရင်ထုံးမှာအောက်ပါအတိုင်းစာတမျက်နှာသာရှိသည်-

“The respondent obtained a decree against the applicant for the recovery of a debt alleged to be due on a promissory note.

The note was not proved, but independent evidence of the obligation,which satisfied the Lower Court, was admitted.

I am asked to revise the decrees of the Lower Courts on the ground that the evidence apart from the promissory note was inadmissible.

The decision of the High Court of Calcutta in Golap Chand Marwaree v.Thakuraui Mohokoom Kooaree * I. L. R.. 3 Cal., 314.is an authority on the subject.

In that case the learned Judges said--

“The general principal seems well settled that the existence of an unstamped promissory note does not prevent the lender of money from recovering on the original consideration, it the pleadings are properly framed for that purpose.In this country the great power given of raising the true issue between the parties prevents the pleadings having much importance.”

This is a very extreme case and I cannot see how it fails to meet the present case.

Not authority has been cited against the view taken above, which was considered and affirmed in the case reported at I. L. R., 23 Cal., 851.

On the authority of these cases I hold that the admission of independent evidence of the obligation in the present instance was not irregular or contrary to law.

I am not concerned with the finding on the facts.

I therefore dismiss this application.”

———————————————————

၁၈၉၈ခုနှစ်၊အောက်တိုဘာလ(၂၄)ရက်နေ့၌စီရင်ဆုံးဖြတ်သည့်-

1897-1901

2 UBR 391 

Mrs. L. EWING vs. G. WHITE.

Before H. Thirkell White, Esq., C.I.E.

အမှုတွင်၊တရားသူကြီး H. Thirkell White ကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

“Argued in revision that in the absence of proof of signature of a promissory note, evidence as to the loan is inadmissible.

Held,--that independent evidence may be given of the original consideration even when a promissory note has been executed,(ငွေပေးကတိစာချုပ်ချုပ်ဆိုထားသည့်တိုင်)and when for any reason the document is excluded.”

အမှုကိုကြားနာရာ၌၊အယူခံတရားလို၏ရှေ့နေက 1897-1901, 2 UBR 390 စီရင်ထုံးကိုစောဒကတက်သဖြင့်အချင်းဖြစ်ပြဿနာကိုကျယ်ကျယ်ပြန့်ပြန့်ပြန်လည်သုံးသပ်ကြောင်းစီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၉၂တွင်အောက်ပါအတိုင်းပြဆိုသည်-

“The question for decision is not the admissibility of secondary evidence, but the admissibility of other evidense.

Section 91 of the Evidence Act, not sections 64 and 65, is the section for consideration.

The question has already been considered in the case of Maung Hlaw v.Nagassat. Page 390.

The learned Advorate contends that the cases therein cited are cases in which the promissory note could not be put in evidence because it was not stamped; and that this case, where the promissory note is on the face of it admissible, but is not proved, falls within a different category.

I have therefore re-examined the authorities and think it will be convenient to record the result.”

စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၉၃တွင်၊အောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆက်လက်ပြဆိုသည်-

“Several cases were cited and the reasons in Sheikh Akbar v. Sheikh Khan were approved.

The cases of Golap Chand Hiralal which have been mentioned above were distinguished as coming under a different principle.”

စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၉၄နှင့်၃၉၅တွင်၊တရားသူကြီး H. Thirkell White ကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းသုံးသပ်ဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

“I think also that it will be seen, on examination of the cases which have been cited, that the decision was not in any instance based on the fact that the want of stamp was the reason for admitting independent evidence.

The reasonings of the several decisions apply, in my opinion, to any case in which  reliance cannot be placed on the promisory note and in which the note is merely evidence of, or a collateral security for, an obligation already existing.”

——————————————————-

1897-1901, 2 UBR 390 နှင့် 1897-1901, 2 UBR 391 စီရင်ထုံးနှစ်ရပ်ကို၊တရားသူကြီး H. Thirkell White တဦးတည်းကဆုံးဖြတ်ခြင်းဖြစ်သည်။

1897-1901, 2 UBR 390 စီရင်ထုံးမှာ၊စာတမျက်နှာသာရှိသည်။

1897-1901, 2 UBR 391 အမှုကိုကြားနာရာ၌၊အယူခံတရားလို၏ရှေ့နေက၊ 1897-1901, 2 UBR 390 စီရင်ထုံးကိုစောဒကတက်သဖြင့်၊အချင်းဖြစ်ပြဿနာကိုကျယ်ကျယ်ပြန့်ပြန့်ပြန်လည်သုံးသပ်ပြီး၊ယခင်အတိုင်းပြဆိုသည်ကိုတွေ့ရသည်။

———————————————————