1. The only point raised in this appeal is concluded by authority so far at least as this Courts concerned. The question is whether if the hand-note evidencing the transaction of the Loan be inadmissible in evidence for want of proper stamp, the transaction can be proved by other evidence independent of the hand-note.
2. This question was considered in Dhaneswar Sahu v. Ramrup Gir (1) and it was held that evidence can be given independently of the hand-note. This judgment was followed in a subsequent case: Abdul Muhammad Khan v. Mahanand Upadhya (2). Sitting singly, I am bound by these judgments and I must hold that the learned Subordinate Judge was right in considering other evidence although the hand-note itself was inadmissible.
3. There is however another point which requires consideration. The Court below has held that evidence as regards the rate of interest cannot be given independently of the hand-note and in this he is right. He has awarded compensation at 6 per cent per annul in lieu of interest. This was the view ex pressed in the earlier of the two cases just cited, but a later decision of this Court has considered the question in very great detail and I feel inclined to agree with that view. In J.H Pattison v. Srimati Bindhaya Debi (3) it was held that interest cannot be allowed in such circumstances. The decree of the Subordinate Judge must therefore be modified by disallowing the compensation at 6 per cent per annum allowed by the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff will however be entitled to interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit until payment. The respondent is entitled to his cost.
K.S
4. Order accordingly.