1975 Supreme(Mad) 617
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. M. Ismail, J.
Lakshmi Ammal .....Appellant(s)
Versus
Rakkayi Ammal and others .....Respondent(s)
S.A.No.2053 of 1972.
Decided On : 09 December 1975
S. Ramasubramaniam, for King and Patridge, for Appellant.
V. T. Gopalan and Mrs. Radha Gopalan, for Respondents.
Past debts cannot be proved only by endorsements.
Headnote:Stamp Act, 1899-Section 35-Promissory note being insufficiently stamped not admissible in evidence-Pronote alleged to have been issued in respect of past debts-Held, only endorsements cannot prove the past debts.
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