1. It is brought to our notice, that the words ' taking his acknowledgment below ' do not exist in the document which gave rise to the reference and we deal with the question on the looting that these words are not in the document. There is no unconditional undertaking on the face of the document to pay the money. It is clear on the face of the document that the undertaking is conditional on the amount being remitted as requested. The document is, no doubt, similar to that in the case reported in Channamma v. Ayyanna I.L.R. 16 Mad. 283 but we are unable to follow that decision. We think that the case reported in the foot-note to 23 M. 156 is correctly decided.
2. Following that decision and the decision of the Division Bench of three Judges in the case reported in Dhond v. Atmaram I.L.R. 13 B. 669 we are of opinion that the document under reference is not a pro-note within the meaning of that term as used in Section 34, Act I of 1879.