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 possession. Apparently what he had in mind was Section 19 of the Stamp Act. It was pointed out in Simulu Rbrahim Rowthan v. Abdul Rahiman Mahomed(1) and Mohamad Rowthan v. Mohamed Husin Rowthan(2) 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 respondents that filing a suit comes under one of these categories. I am unable to agree with this suggestion.
2. 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 Rowthan v. Abdul Rahiman Mahomed may be accepted, namely that if any stamp is necessary it would be sufficient if at the time of the decree an Indian stamp was affixed to the document. I 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. 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.
S.N/R.K
3. Case remanded.