JUNG BAHADUR AHIR Vs. BANSROPAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that the opposite parties had executed a promissory note on 6th July 1937 in favour of the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 200. On 28 June 1940 they executed another promissory note for Rs. 272. In this promissory note reference was made to the principal and interest due under the earlier document and it was recited that as that document was about to be barred it was considered necessary that a second promissory note should be executed. On 26 June 1943 the petitioners brought the present suit in the Small Cause Court to recover a sum of Rs. 369-14-6 alleging that the cause of action arose on the date or the execution of the second promissory note. This suit was dismissed on the ground that the first promissory note was time barred and the second promissory note was insufficiently stamped. The petitioners have now filed an application under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, praying that the judgment of the Court below be set aside and a decree passed in their favour against the opposite parties for the sum claimed in the suit. It was not disputed that the promissory note of 28 June 1940 is insufficiently stamped.

(2.) It is, however; contended that though that document was not admissible as a promissory note, yet it was admissible as an acknowledgment of debt. The question, however, is whether the document can be admitted in evidence for that purpose in view of the provisions of Section 35, Stamp Act, which read 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 authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped.

(3.) It was held in Mulji Lala V/s. Lingu Makaji (97) 21 Bom. that an acknowledgment of a debt coming under Art. 1, Schedule 1, Stamp Act, 1 [I] of 1879, cannot be given in evidence for any purpose including the purpose of saving limitation. This case was followed by the Madras High Court in Nageshwara Eao v. Narayanamurti (97) 21 Bom. 201. That was a case relating to a promissory note of a somewhat similar nature to the document with which I am concerned in this revision, and it was held that an improperly stamped promissory note is inadmissible in evidence to prove an acknowledgment of liability in order to save limitation in respect of promissory notes previously executed. The learned Chief Justice of the Madras High Court who delivered the judgment in that case pointed out that on the wording of Section 35, Stamp Act, an improperly stamped promissory note cannot be admitted in evidence for the purpose of saving limitation or for any other purpose.