An insufficiently stamped promissory note is inadmissible in evidence, but a suit can still be brought on the original transaction of loan if the promissory note was not taken in discharge of the loan but was merely taken as conditional payment or collateral security.

G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF's suit is for recovery of Rs. 402, both principal and interest inclusive on the allegation that on 23-6-1901 the defendant took a loan of Rs. 300 in cash on executing a promissory note by way of security for realisation of the loan and in evidence thereof and stipulated therein to pay hack the loan and to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on demand. In para 6 of the plaint the cause of action was mentioned to he borrowing of money on the basis of the promissory note The defence need not be stated as it is not relevant for the purpose of this revision. On 1-9-1964 plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order ft, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code. Certain portions of the plaint were prayed to be deleted and to be substituted by the averments that there was an oral agreement that the principal and interest at 12 per cent per annum would be paid on demand. The object of the amendment was to clearly state that the plaint is based on the original transaction of loan and not on the promissory note. The learned S C. C. Judge rejected the prayer for amendment on that very day. The Civil Revision has been filed against this order

( 2 ) THE recital in the promissory note shows that the principal was Rs. 300. When the amount or value exceeds Rs. 250 hut floes not exceed Rs. 1000 the proper stamp duty to be affixed is 15 paise (see Article 49 of schedule 1 of the Indian stamp Act ). A stamp of the denomination of ten (10) nave paise has been affixed to the promissory note. Thus the promissory note was insufficiently stamped. Under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 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. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Ram rattan v. Parmanand, AIR 1946 PC 51, settled the conflict of authorities by holding that the words "for any purpose" in the section, should be given their natural meaning and effect and would include a collateral purpose. Where an unstamped document is admitted in proof of some collateral matter it is certainly admitted in evidence for that purpose which the statute had prohibited. In sufficient stamped promissory note is therefore inadmissible in evidence for all purposes. There is no conflict of authority that the suit based on promissory note must fail when it is inadmissible in evidence being insufficiently stamped. But the question is whether the plaintiff can bring a suit on the original transaction of loan de hors the promissory note This necessitates an examination of the provisions of Section 91 of the Evidence Act which lays down that when the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained. Illustration (b)appended to the Section is as follows: if a contract is contained in a bill of exchange, the bill of exchange must be proved.

( 3 ) AS to what extent oral agreement of loan would be excluded u/s 91 of the evidence Act, there is sharp cleavage of opinion All conceivable arguments, pro and contra, have been noticed in many Full Bench decisions of different High courts in India (see Nazir Khan v. Ram Mohan Lal, AIR 1931 All 183 (FB); Sheo nath Prasad v. Sarjoo Nomia, AIR 1943 All 220 (FB): Ramnath v. Bbagwali Prasad, air 1946 AH 150, Domoo Khan v. Agha Arshad Khan, AIR 1933 Pat 575 (FB); Chit maung v. Rosha