Varadadachariar, J.

1. Plaintiff-appellant sued to recover a sum of money on the basis of what is referred to in the plaint as a "signed letter" given by the defendant on 12th April 1920. That letter bears only a one anna stamp and the lower Court has held that it is a promissory note not payable on demand" and is therefore insufficiently stamped. It dismissed the suit, holding that the suit is based only on that inadmissible letter, and not on any original debt as an independent cause of action. In the appeal the learned Advocate-General has contended that that letter is not a promissory note at all or, if it is a promissory note, it is payable on demand and is therefore duly stamped. The appellant has also taken the precaution of applying to this Court for permission to amend the plaint, by basing the claim, alternatively on the "debt" independently of the said letter. In support of the first contention urged on behalf of the appellant, viz., that the document in question, is not a promissory note, reliance is placed upon the fact that the document does not in terms contain a promise to pay to a specified person. The terms of the document are set out in the judgment of the