Sharma, J.—This is the plaintiffs appeal, and has arisen out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 510/- against the defendant-respondent,

2. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants father, Gomla, had money dealings with the plaintiffs firm, and that on Magh Sud 11, Sam-wat 2000, corresponding to 4th February, 1944, according to the account, a balance of Rs. 376/2|- was found against Gomla, the father of Gidha defendant, and that a balance was struck in the Khata and thumb-marked by Gomla. Interest was stipulated at the rate of Rs. 1/9/- per cent per mensem. After the striking out of this balance, Gomla died, and Gidha, son of Gomla, has been sued for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 376/2/-principal and Rs. 133/14/- interest, total Rs. 510/-.

3. It was pleaded by Gidha defendant, inter alia, that the document in suit was a promissory note, and was insufficiently stamped, inasmuch as it was chargeable with a stamp duty of 2 annas, whereas a stamp only of the value of 1 anna had been affixed. The document was therefore, not admissible in evidence.

4. The plea of the defendant was given effect to by the learned Munsif, Nim-ka-Thana, and on appeal, the learned Civil Judge, Nim-ka-Thana, too agreed with the Munsif, and confirmed the decree of dismissal. Against this decree the plaintiff went in second appeal to Jaipur High Court. It was heard by a Single Judge of that Court, who referred it to a Division Bench, and on the supersession of the Jaipur High Court by this Court, it has come up for hearing before us to-day. During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, Gidha defendant died, and his sons, Ramnath and two others, have been substituted in his place.

5. It has been argued by Mr, R. K. Rastogi on behalf of the appellants that the document in suit was not a promissory note, but was a mixture of an acknowledgement and agreement. It has been argued that in order to see whether a document is a promissory note, the intention of the parties at the time of execution of the document is to be looked into. In the present case, the primary intention of the parties was to acknowledge a certain liability, and to agree to pay a certain rate of interest on the balance found. Simply the words "the money will be paid when demanded by the owner adding interest at the rate of 1 pice per rupee" towards the end, does not convert the document into a promissory note. The circumstances, from which he has asked us to infer that the document was not a promissory note, are that the balance was struck in a bahi, and that apart from the words about the payment, the document only furnishes evidence of a certain liability found after going into the accounts. He has cited two recent rulings of the Privy Council in the cases of Nawab Major Sir Mohammad Akbar Khan vs. Attar Singh and others (1) and Lata Karam Chand and another vs. Firm Mian Mir Ahmad Aziz Ahmad and another(2) (A.I.R. 1938 Privy Council 121.). He has also relied upon a ruling of the Nagpur High Court in the case of Ganpatdas Kaludas Gosai vs. Hari Vallabh Onkarji Trivedi (3) (A.I.R. 1941 Nagpur 1.). He has also cited a ruling of the Court of Appeal of England in the case of Mortgage Insurance Corporation, Limited vs. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (4) ((1888) 21 Queeas Bench Division 352.).

6. On behalf of the respondents, we have been referred to a ruling of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pandit Sushil Chander Chaturvedi vs. Wali Ullah and others (5) (A.I.R. 1941 Allahabad 158.). and it has been argued that the learned Judges had before them a document practically in the same language as that of the document in suit, and that on a consideration of the two rulings of the Privy Council, cited above, they came to the conclusion that the document was a promissory note, and being insufficiently stamped was inadmissible in evidence.

7. We have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. One important question that emerges from a perusal of all the authorities placed before us

Click Here to Read the rest of this document