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 Munsiff held it to be not duly stamped because the stamp was not cancelled in such a manner that it could not be used again. The manner in which the stamp was cancelled in this case is stated by the Munsiff thus: "Some blue pencil Iines are drawn over to the stamp." The Munsiff considered this not to be an eftctive method of cancellation. I have looked at the stamp myself and I am unable to say that the District Munsiff 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 could 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 ef