Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, prohibits the admission of an improperly stamped document for any purpose, including saving limitation, in a civil suit.

Alfred Henry Ltonel Leach, C.J.

1. The question raised by this petition is whether an improperly stamped promissory note can be admitted in evidence to prove acknowledgment of liability in order to save limitation in respect of promissory notes previously executed. The petition arises out of a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Amalapurm. The promissory note was in the following terms:

On account of my necessity this day--that is, the amount due for principal and interest on the promissory note executed and delivered on 23rd June, 1929, is Rs. 93-3-0; the amount due on the promissory note executed and delivered on 6th July, 1929, is Rs. 92-13-0 and the amount due for principal and interest on the promissory note executed and delivered on 14th February, 1931, is Rs. 101. The total is Rs. 287. On demand I promise to pay you or order in one lump sum, the (said) principal together with interest thereon at Rs. 1-9-0 (One rupee and nine annas) per cent, per mensem, shall it the payment endorsed on this note and take it back. The consideration hereof has been received as aforesaid. This promissory note is executed with consent.

2. On a stamp of the value of one anna was appended the signature of the executant. The learned Judge before whom the case came refused to admit this document on the ground that its admission was prohibited by Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that this decision is wrong. He says that the learned Judge should have admitted that portion of the document which recited the previous promissory notes, and that this would have saved limitation in respect of the earlier instruments. The relevant portion of Section 35 reads as follows:

No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer unless such instrument is duly stamped.

3. It will be observed that the instrument shall not be admitted in evidence for any purpose, nor shall it be acted upon, unless it bears the stamp prescribed by law. I should have thought that on the wording of this section it was clear that the promissory note in suit could not be admitted in evidence for the purpose sought by the petitioner or for any other purpose.

4. But the petitioners counsel has quoted two cases decided by which support his contention. He also relies Leach, C.J. on a passage from the work of the late Sir Dinshah Mulla on the Indian Stamp Act.

5. Before referring to these authorities I would point out that the words for any purpose did not appear in the General Stamp Act, 1869, but were inserted for the first time in the Indian Stamp Act, 1879, and that they were not introduced into the English Act until the year 1891 (54 and 55 Vict., Ch. 39). In 1849, the question of the admissibility of an improperly stamped document for collateral purposes was discussed by the House of Lords in the case of Matheson v. Ross (1849) 2 H.L.C. 286: 9 E.R. 1101. It was there held that where a paper purported to be a receipt, and, as such, required a stamp, but also purported to be an agreed statement of accounts, which did not require a stamp, it might be given in evidence to show the agreed state of accounts only, though it had not been previously stamped. But it has since been accepted that the amendment in the English Act in 1891 has worked a change.

6. In Rakkappan Ambalamv Suppiah Ambalam A.I.R. 1930 Mad. 485 Pandalai, J., held that where a promissory note contained, in addition to the promise, a statement that the amount for which it was given was due in settlement of a previous account, the instrument, although inadmissible as a promissory note for want of sufficient stamp, was admissible to prove an acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The reason given was that Section 35 of the Stamp Act me