Mehar Singh, J.

1. The plaintiff sued the defendants to recover Rs. 1.400/-as principal, with Rs. 300/- as interest, a total of Rs. 1,700/-, on the basis of what he himself described in his plaint as a promissory note of Poh Badi 4.2015 Bk., corresponding to December 30, 1958. The document is a separate piece of paper and bears the stamp of 20 Paise. If it is a promissory note, the stamp should have been of 25 Paise, and, if it is an acknowledgment, it should have been of 10 Paise.

2. The language of the document is --"Age rupya chuda sau (ank 1400/-) rokri liya jia ka biaj dar 12 ane sainkra dena mange tab dena." The ending words mange tab dena in English translation mean payment to be made when demanded. An objection being raised on the side of the defendants as to the admissibility of this document in evidence on the ground that it being a promissory note does not bear proper stamp and hence is not admissible in evidence, it prevailed with the learned trial Judge on the ground that the document has in Et promise by the defendants to pay the amount stated in it on the demand of the plaintiff. So the learned trial Judge dismissed the claim of the plaintiff by his judgment