The main legal principle established is that an improperly stamped instrument, such as a promissory note, cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose, including saving limitation, as per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

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 Amalapuram. 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 June 23, 1929, is Rs. 93-3-0: the amount due on the promissory note executed and delivered on July 6, 1929, is Rs. 92-13-0 and the amount due for principal and interest on the promissory note executed and delivered on February 14, 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) percent, per mensem, shall get 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 bylaw 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, not shall 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. Bat the petitioners Counsel has quoted two cases decided by Pandalai, J., which support his contention. He also relies on a passage from the work of the late Sir Dinshah Mulla on the Tndian Stamp Act.

4. 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, under the year 1891 (54 and 55 Vict. Oh. 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. Rose (1849) 2 H.L. 236 : 9 E.R. 1101 : 13 Jur. 307 : 81 R.R. 153 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.

5. In Rakkappan Ambalam v. Suppiah Amlalam AIR1930Mad485 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 merely shuts ou