1. The decision of the Court below in this case is wrong and must be set aside. The suit was a suit to recover Rs. 230 odd said to be due in respect of a loan made by the plaintiff to the defendant on the 21st December 1923, It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant had borrowed the money and had written a sarkhat. The sarkhat bears a one-anna stamp, but the stamp has not been obliterated and apparently on this, ground the Judge of the Court below dismissed the suit. He was satisfied that the defendant had the money, but he said, as the suit was on the sarkhat and the stamp had not been obliterated, the suit must fail. I do not agree with the Subordinate Judge. I have read the sarkhat; it does not recite any promise to pay on the part of the defendant. It is merely a written acknowledgment that he had borrowed Rs. 150 from the plaintiff. If the plaintiff was able, as he was able, to prove aliunde by oral evidence that the defendant had the money then I think he was entitled to a decree. The sarkhat may not have been available as evidence, but the other evidence establishes that the loan was made. I allow this application, set aside the decree of the Court below and give the plaintiff a decree for the full amount claimed with costs. The plaintiff is also entitled to his costs in this Court.