Bilal Nazki, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri Vedula Srinivas learned Advocate. As none appeared for' the defendants, Sri Vedula Srinivas, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
2. During the pendency of this appeal, the 1st appellant-plaintiff, Smt. Rohini Bai, died and accordingly her legal representatives were brought on record as Appellants 2 to 5. Originally the said Rohini Bai, filed O.S. No. 47/79 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, for recovery of money on the strength of two promissory notes dated 25.2.1977 and 26.2.1977. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they took a plea that the promissory notes are insufficiently stamped. Thereafter the plaint was amended and in addition to the two promissory notes, the books of accounts maintained in the normal course of business by the plaintiff were also pressed into service. Issues were framed by the Trial Court and evidenced was led and the suit was dismissed. The Trial Court held that in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, the promissory notes could not be relied upon as they were insufficiently stamped. The books of accounts were also not relied upon by the Trial Court because some loose sheets were presented before the Court and the Court was of the view that the loose sheets supported by the plaintiff's statement alone could not be taken as proof of the transaction between the defendants and the plaintiff.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has neither challenges the findings of the Trial Court on the admissibility of the promotes nor she challenges the findings and conclusions drawn on the books of accounts placed before the Trial Court. But she submits that the suit was based on two promissory notes and the execution and receipt of money under one of the promissory notes was admitted by the defendants in their written statement.
4. In para 3 of the written statement, the Defendants stated that the defendants 2 and 3 took a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.2.1977 and executed a pronote on the same day. Since there is an admission on the part of the defendants, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Trial Court was not to proceed further but pass a decree in terms of Order 12, Rule 6 of CPC. Rule 6 of Order 12 reads as follows:
'6. Judgment on admission :--(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admission.'
5. We have seen that there was a clear admission made by the defendants that he has taken a loan of Rs. 25,000/-on 26.2.1977 and executed a promissory note on the same day and had also agreed to pay interest and for some time he paid interest also. Therefore, in view of this clear and un-qualified admission made by the defendants the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for an amount of Rs. 27,000/- due under the promissory note dated 26.2.1977.
6. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court to the extent mentioned hereinabove and direct that a decree be passed in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs for an amount of Rs. 27,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.