( 1 ) THE question that arises in this revision case is solely one of law, as the material facts are not in controversy. The petitioner sued for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 499, being the amount of the debt borrowed by the defendants from him on the 6th September, 1951. He relied upon a payment made on the ist September, 1954, as saving the debt from the bar of limitation. The plaintiff produced in the lower Court, Exhibit A-1, a promissory note executed by the defendants in his favour, on the reverse side of which there is an endorsement of payment. The lower Court dismissed the suit holding that the promissory note not having been sufficiently stamped, the suit laid on the foot of that note was not maintainable.

( 2 ) MR. Pooraiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the promissory note having been admitted in evidence, section 36 of the Stamp Act prohibited the rejection of the document at a subsequent stage of the suit. In this contention, he is supported by the decision of Mr. Justice Viswanatha Sastri in Basavayya Naidu v. Venkateswarlu. He has alternatively contend d thatt the endorsement of payment, evidenced by Exhibit A-1, constitutes an acknowledgment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document