Judgment.-The plaintiff in O.S. No. 685 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Madurai Town, who lost before the Courts below is the appellant herein. The suit was instituted for recovery of the amount said to be due under a promissory note dated 15th May, 1959 marked as Exhibit A-4, said to have been executed by the respondent herein in favour of the deceased Parthasarathi Iyengar for a sum of Rs. 1,500. It was the case of the appellant herself that no cash was paid on the date of Exhibit A-4; that prior to Exhibit A-4 the respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 500 under a promissory note dated 1st August, 1956 marked as Exhibit A-1, another sum of Rs. 500 under a promissory note dated 1st December, 1956 marked as Exhibit A-2 and a third sum of Rs. 500 under another promissory note dated 31st May, 1957 marked as Exhibit A-3; and that consolidating all the three amounts only, the suit promissory note Exhibit A-4 was executed in lieu of the said three promissory notes. One of the contentions raised by the respondent was that the promissory note Exhibit A-4 wasinsufficiently stamped and therefore it could not be sued upon. Thereafter the appellant sought to recover the money on the basis of the original cause of action and the suit was ultimately disposed of on that basis. With regard to the claim of the appellant to recover the amount on the basis of the original cause of action, it was held by the Courts below that the suit was barred by limitation and, therefore the suit instituted by the appellant was dismissed. It is against the said dismissal, the present second appeal has been filed.

2. Exhibit A-4 promissory note itself contains two endorsements of payment, one dated 20th March, 1962 marked as Exhibit A-9 and the other dated 4th March, 1965 marked as Exhibit A-10. The suit itself was instituted only on 23rd October, 1967. On the face of it, the original cause of action, namely, in respect of the three sums of Rs. 500 each referred to above, having arisen on 1st August, 1956, 1st December, 1956 and 31st May, 1957 respectively, the suit instituted in 1967 was barred by limitation unless the appellant could base her claim on any acknowledgment. According to the appellant, Exhibit A-4 itself constituted as acknowledgment because it refers to the borrowing of Rs. 1,500. The Courts below have held that Exhibit A-4 could not constitute an acknowledgment and that even if it constituted an acknowledgment, the same would not be admissible in evidence and that consequently the appellant could not succeed on the basis of any such acknowledgment as contained in Exhibit A-4. I am of the opinion that the conclusion of the Courts below on this point is correct. In the first place, Exhibit A-4 itself does not refer to any debts outstanding as on the date on which Exhibit A-4 promissory note was executed. The recital in Exhibit A-4 proceeds as if on the date of Exhibit A-4 the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,500 from the deceased Partha-sarathy Iyengar. Once it is admitted that no amount was borrowed by the respondent on the date of Exhibit A-4 and that Exhibit A-4 was only a consolidated promissory note in lieu of Exhibits A-1, A-2 and A-3, it will follow that Exhibit A-4 does not constitute an acknowledgment of liability with regard to the amounts borrowed on 1st August, 1956, 1st December, 1956 and 3lst May, 1957 respectively. Secondly, even assuming that Exhibit A-4 can be said to constitute an acknowledgment of liability, still Exhibit A-4 not being admissible in evidence, there is no acknowledgment of liability in law. It is admitted that Exhibit A-4 was insufficiently stamped as a promissory note. Therefore, by virtue of section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, it must be held that Exhibit A-4 cannot be admitted in evidence even for the purpose of showing that it constituted as acknowledgment of a pre-existing liability. Section 35 of the Stamp Act states that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document