A promissory note which is insufficiently stamped cannot be relied upon for any purpose under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, barring it from serving as an acknowledgment of debt.

1. The simple point that arises in this revision petition is whether a promissory note which is insufficiently stamped can be relied upon as evidence for any purpose under S.35 of the Stamp Act . The facts out of which this revision has arisen may be briefly noticed.

2. The opposite' party No. 1 in this petition brought a suit to recover a sum of Rs.600/- from the petitioner who, according to the plaintiff, had executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff's father for a sum of Rs.600/-. Opposite party No. 2 was added as defendant No. 2 on the 'ground that he was a member of the joint family of the petitioner - defendant No. 1. It would appear that on the death of plaintiff's father, there was a family partition in the family of the plaintiff under which the debt in favour of the plaintiff's father fell to the share of the plaintiff, and accordingly the plaintiff demanded payment of the money due thereunder, and the petitioner herein executed the suit document marked as Ex. 1 in the case, in respect of that debt.

3. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the suit promissory note was insufficiently stamped and, therefore, could not be relied on for any purpose having regard to the plain language of S.35 of the Stamp Act . On appeal, the Subordinate Judge, Cachar at Silchar, reversed the decision of the Additional Munsif on the ground that although the promissory note was inadmissible in evidence under S.35 of the Stamp Act , it could nevertheless be used as an acknowledgment of liability of the prior debt, and a decree could, therefore, be given to the plaintiff on that footing. So holding, he decreed the plaintiff's suit reversing the decision of the Additional Munsif. Hence this revision petition by the first defendant in the suit.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge relied on a decision of the Nagpur High Court, reported in Sudamsa Arjunsa Kshatraiya v. Kisanrao Dawalatrao , AIR 1938 Nag 294 wherein it was laid down by a single Judge of that Court that where a promissory note was not properly stamped and was inadmissible in evidence as acknowledgment of debt under Art.1, Stamp Act , by reason of S.35 of the Stamp Act , is admissible in evidence to prove the fact that the debtor made an admission of liability to pay, apart from any intention of supplying evidence of such debt. It was further held in that case that S.35 conies into play only if the document is used as containing within itself any matter which would extend the creditor's right to recover money; but if the creditor derives his right not from the document itself, as would be the case if it were treated as an acknowledgment under Art.1, but from the Limitation Act in consequence of the admission of the liability simpliciter contained in that document, S.35 has no applicability. It is unfortunate that the learned single Judge, who decided this case did not apply his mind to an earlier decision of the same High court, in the cage of Govirida v. Haribhau , reported in AIR 1933 Nag 391, wherein it was held that in a promissory note is to be inadmissible in evidence because it is insufficiently stamped it must be inadmissible in evidence also as a written acknowledgment, and that it is not correct to say that to / use the note as an acknowledgment is to use it for a collateral purpose; on the contrary it is akin to the main purpose of the deed itself, which is an acknowledgment of money either due or paid at the time.
That apart, the learned Subordinate Judge did' not take the trouble of examining the subsequent decisions on the point. It is sufficient to refer