1. The suit is based upon the promissory notes executed at Mecca in favour of the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge has held that they are inadmissible in evidence He has not referred to any authorities in support of his position. Apparently what he had in mind was Section 19 of the Stamp Act. It was pointed out in Simulu Ebrahim Rowthan v. Abdul Rahiman Mahomad : (1898)8MLJ182 and Mahomad Rowthan v. Mahomad Husin Rowthan I.L.R. (1899) Mad. 337 : 9 M.L.J. 135 that it is not necessary before suit to affix a British stamp on documents executed outside British India unless it be for the purposes of acceptance, payment, endorsement, transfer or negotiation It is argued for the respondent that filing a suit comes under one of these categories. I am unable to agree with this suggestion. If a document is valid according to the law of the place where it was executed, it can ordinarily be sued upon in India without affixing any Indian stamp on the document. Probably the suggestion of Shephard, J., in Simulu Ebrahim Bowthan v. Abdul Bahiman Mahomad : (1898)8MLJ182 may be accepted, namely that if any stamp is necessary it would be sufficient if at the time of the decree an Indian stamp is affixed to the document. 1 am not sure whether under the law prevailing in Mecca a promissory note like this without any stamp on it could have been sued upon.
2. But the position taken up by the Subordinate Judge is certainly untenable. It is opposed to the decisions I have referred to. I must therefore reverse his decision and remand the suit for disposal in the light of the above observations. Costs hitherto incurred will follow the event.