1. A suit instituted on 5th January 1927 was alleged to be within time by reason of an acknowledgment of 15th March 1925. The question then arose whether that acknowledgment was admissible in evidence. It was executed in the Gwalior territory at Ujjain, and a one anna stamp of the Gwalior State affixed thereto. The account-book was Produced in British Court at Cawnpore on 5th January 1927, but not stamped till more than three months afterwards. Under Section 18, Stamp Act, every instrument chargeable with duty executed out of British India and not being a bill of exchange, cheque or promissory note, may be stamped within three months after it has been first received in British India. In the present case the stamp duty was not paid within time, and under Section 35 of the Act the acknowledgment shall not be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any Court of law. The proviso as to payment of the duty and penalty does not apply as the instrument was chargeable with a duty of one anna only.
2. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-applicant referred to the case of Amina Begam v. Nawab of Ranipur (1910) 33 All 571. In that case an unstamped promissory-note was admitted in evidence, because under the law of Ranipur no stamp duty was leviable. Subsequently when produced in a British Court, it was duly stamped according to British law. For one thing, the document was a promissory-note to which Section 19 of the Act would apply and not Section 18. There is no statutory period of three months in cases falling under Section 19. In the ruling cited there was no discussion as to stamp duty leviable in British India. When the promissory-note was sued upon, the stamp duty of British India was affixed thereon. As the acknowledgment was not admissible in evidence, the suit was lime barred and was rightly dismissed.
3. The next argument was that some of the items of account were within time from the date of the institution of the suit. The lower Court, however, stated that no attempt was made to prove those separate items. A statement in the written statement was placed before this Court. That statement, however, did not amount to an admission of the items of account mentioned in the plaint.
4. I dismiss the application with costs.