PANDIT SALIG RAM Vs. RADHAY SHIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the defendant against a decree of the learned Additional Subordinate .Judge of Moradabad in appeal decreeing the suit of the plaintiff with costs. The plaint as originally brought was based on a promissory note of 7 November 1925 for Rs. 1,350 with interest at Re. 1.4-0 per cent. Subsequently the plaint was amended and the suit was based on an earlier promissory note of 10 November 1922 for Rs. 1,000 at the same rate of interest of Be. 1-4-0 per mensem. Both the promissory notes were stated to be executed by Salig Ram, the appellant, in favour of the father of the plaintiff.

(2.) As regards the second promissory note it is admitted that this promissory note was not properly stamped. Accordingly, Section 35, Stamp Act, applies which states: No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purposes unless such instrument is duly stamped.

(3.) It is contended that this promissory note of 7 November 1925 is inadmissible for evidence for any purpose and therefore we leave it entirely out of consideration. The suit was brought on 27 June 1927, and it is claimed for the appellant-defendant that the suit on the transaction of 10 November 1922 is time barred. For the respondent it is claimed that limitation is saved by an admission of liability under Section 19, Lim. Act. This admission is contained in an endorsement on the back of a promissory note of 10 November 1922 and is on the following terms: 7 November 1925 ko promissory note haza Ke ewaz men dusra promissory note tadadi 1350 rupia ka takrir kaidya yeh hhoka hogaya.