1. The only point raised in this appeal by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the document referred to in the judgments of the two lower Courts is an acknowledgment of a debt within the meaning of Article 1, schedule I of the Stamp Act, and being such a document it should have been stamped with a one-anna stamp; and that, requiring a one-anna stamp, under Section 31 of the Stamp Act, it was a document for which no penalty could be paid, and which could not be received in evidence.
2. We have looked at the document ourselves, and we think that it is not an acknowledgment of a debt within the meaning of Article 1. Schedule I of the Stamp Act, and we are fortified in this opinion by a decision of Mr. Justice Prinsep and Mr. Justice O'Kinealy on a very similar point in the case of Brojo Gobind Shaha v. Goluck Chunder Shaha 9. C 127.
3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.