The legal point established is that an insufficiently stamped promissory note cannot be used as evidence, and the correct interpretation of the nature of a contract is crucial in determining liability.

Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. In my view, this Civil Revision Petition must be dismissed with costs although that result is reached by coming to a different decision upon the point of limitation to that reached by the learned Subordinate Judge. It seems to have been conceded in the lower Court that the promissory note Ex. B was insufficiently stamped and the suit was not brought upon the promissory note at all. The only use to which it was put at the trial was as an acknowledgment of his debt to remove the bar of limitation which otherwise was obviously in the way of the claim, the amount sued for having been due on the 30th November, 1929, and the suit filed on the 10th March, 1934. The learned trial Judge held that although the note could not be used as a promissory note it could nevertheless be used as an acknowledgment of the defendants liability for the debt sued upon and he relied upon the decisions in Vancheswara v. Narayana AIR1933Mad251 and Rakkappan v. Suppiah AIR1930Mad485 . The learned Subordinate Judge had not got before him the unreported decision of a Bench of this Court to which I myself was a party in K.M. Subbayyar and Sons v. P.N. Lakshmana Aiyar and Ors. S.A. No. 124 of 1930 in which judgment was given on 6th September, 1934. There the Bench took a view contrary to that expressed in the two decisions of Krishnan Pandalai, J., sitting alone to which I have just made reference. It was held that a promissory note which was insufficiently stamped could not be used for the purpose of proving an acknowledgment by the maker of it of his indebtedness. That decision is not only binding upon me but I think is a correct one as well. The learned Subordinate Judge has quite rightly taken this to be a document which comes within Section 35 of the Stamp Act. It is true that it is a promise to pay at a future date instead of on demand but it is nevertheless a promise to pay and is in my opinion clearly provided for by Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Therefore the learned Subordinate Judge should have held that the suit was barred by limitation as an insufficiently stamped note could not be used in evidence for any purpose and it is not necessary for me to deal with the other questions raised before him. But I think it necessary to say this that the suit was brought by the assignee from the receiver appointed in a partition suit in the stake-holders family which at the time of the starting of the kuri or chit was an undivided family. This was an auction chit and there were to be 14 auctions. There were 15 subscribers each of them subscribing Rs. 500 for 15 instalments. Except with regard to the 2nd instalment out of which the suit arose, the same procedure was adopted with regard to the others. The 15 subscribers subscribed each Rs. 500 making a total of Rs. 7,500. This sum of money was immediately put up in auction and sold to the subscriber or bidder who was prepared to give the largest discount. He then got the sum of money less the discount offered by himself. This discount at the 1st auction was divided up amongst all the subscribers except the successful bidder. The 2nd instalment differed considerably from all the others in that the whole of the subscriptions of the 15 subscribers amounting to Rs. 7,500 went to the stake-holder. It was in fact his prize and thereafter at all the other auctions the discount offered by the successful bidder was divided up amongst those subscribers who had not been successful at the previous auctions and excluding the stake-holder. The defendant paid his subscription in respect of the first instalment and also the third and the fourth when my information, which I got from Mr. K. Rajah Aiyar, is that the chit stopped. The whole of the trouble arises in this case in respect of the second instalment. The defendant did not subscribe his Rs. 500 as he ought to have done. Instead a promissory note payable in three years time was taken from him and, as he did not pay the amount