Horwill, J.

1. The petitioners suit was dismissed for want of evidence showing the plaintiffs title to sue. The want of evidence was due to the fact that the assignment in his favour of the promissory note which he sued on was not properly stamped. Prior to the filing of the suit, the petitioner had taken the assignment to the Collector for his opinion under Section 32 of the Stamp Act. The Collector expressed his opinion that no stamp duty was necessary and sent the petitioner a letter to that effect. The petitioner relied on that letter from the Collector and contended that even though the assignment should have been stamped, yet the Collectors certificate was final and could not be questioned by a Civil Court. The District Munsif however, found that the Collectors decision that no stamp duty was necessary was wrong. He also found that even though the Collectors decision might be binding on him, the Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 32, because it was sent to him more than a month after the execution of the assignment. He also found that the Collectors certificate was of no avail ; because it was not of the nature of the certificate r