Sundara Aiyar, J.

1. The question raised in this revision-petition is whether the lower Court was right in rejecting as inadmissible the promissory-note on which the suit was instituted. The note was executed outside British India but was endorsed over to the plaintiff in British India. It is quite clear under Section 3, Clause (b) of the Stamp Act, that the document required to be duly stamped. The District Munsif held it to be not duly stamped because the stamp was not cancelled in a manner that it could not be used again. The manner in which the stamp was cancelled in this case is stated by the Munsif thus: "some blue pencil lines are drawn over the stamp". The Munsif considered this not to be an, effective method of cancellation. I have looked at the stamp myself and I am unable to say that the District Munsif was wrong in holding that the stamp was not properly cancelled. It is not possible to lay down any general rule as to what mode of cancellation would be effective. The Legislature has abstained from doing so and perhaps it is as well that Judges should do the same. I have, however, no difficulty in holding, in the present case that the stamp has not been effectivel