Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for the recovery of Rs. 17,919-11-1 with costs and interest due in respect of dealings between the plaintiffs firm and the 1st defendant. The 2nd and 3rd defendants are the sons of the 1st defendant and they are members of a joint undivided Nattukottai trading family.

2. The only point now taken in appeal is whether Ex. E is an acknowledgment of liability which requires to be stamped and therefore ought not to have been admitted in evidence. There is no other defence to the plaintiffs action. The learned Chief Justice who tried the case overruled the plea that Ex. E requires a stamp and admitted it in evidence. We think that we cannot in appeal go into the question whether it was rightly or wrongly admitted. Section 36 of the Stamp Act is clear. It says that, where an instrument has been admitted in evidence such admission shall not, except as provided by Section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument was not duly stamped. Section 61 does not touch this case where a document has been admitted by the trial Judge in evidence, we do not think that it