PENATAPATI NAGESWARA RAO Vs. MOKA NARAYANAMURTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised by this petition is whether an improperly stamped promissory note can be admitted in evidence to prove acknowledgment of liability in order to save limitation in respect of promissory notes previously executed. The petition arises out of a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Amalapurm. The promissory note was in the following terms: On account of my necessity this day--that is, the amount due for principal and interest on the promissory note executed and delivered on 23 June, 1929, is Rs. 93-3-0; the amount due on the promissory note executed and delivered on 6th July, 1929, is Rs. 92-13-0 and the amount due for principal and interest on the promissory note executed and delivered on 14 February, 1931, is Rs. 101. The total is Rs. 287. On demand I promise to pay you or order in one lump sum, the (said) principal together with interest thereon at Rs. 1-9-0 (One rupee and nine annas) per cent, per mensem, shall it the payment endorsed on this note and take it back. The consideration hereof has been received as aforesaid. This promissory note is executed with consent.

(2.) On a stamp of the value of one anna was appended the signature of the executant. The learned Judge before whom the case came refused to admit this document on the ground that its admission was prohibited by Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that this decision is wrong. He says that the learned Judge should have admitted that portion of the document which recited the previous promissory notes, and that this would have saved limitation in respect of the earlier instruments. The relevant portion of Section 35 reads 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 will be observed that the instrument shall not be admitted in evidence for any purpose, nor shall it be acted upon, unless it bears the stamp prescribed by law. I should have thought that on the wording of this section it was clear that the promissory note in suit could not be admitted in evidence for the purpose sought by the petitioner or for any other purpose.