JUDGEMENT : NEVASKAR, J. Plaintiffs sued defendant Samirmal on the basis of a writing alleged to have been executed by the latter on Pous Bidi 7 Samvat 2004 for an avowed consideration of Rs.6,000. The Writing contained the following recital: "Date of maturity of Maha Bidi 6 Samvat 2004, Salutations to Bhai Kasturchandji Suarjmalji from Gendalal Samirmal. I have received Rs.6,000 (in words rupees six thousands) taken by me for one month on Pous Bidi 6 Samvat 2004. Miti Pous Bidi 7 Samvat 2004. (On one anna stamp) Gendalal Samirmal Sd/Samirmal Badjatia." 2. The defendant contended that the writing sued upon was not a receipt and being insufficiently stamped was inadmissible in evidence. It was also stated that the plaintiff's allegations as they are stated in Para 2 of the plaint were not admitted. The defendant further denied to have received consideration stated in the document. In the end he prayed for instalments. 3. The trial Court by its order dated 9-6-1950 held relying upon - 'Karam Chand v. Firm Mian Mir Ahmad Aziz Ahmad', AIR 1938 PC 121 (A) that the document sued upon was a receipt and was therefore properly stamped and is admissible in evidence. 4. It later recorded evidence of both parties and held that the execution of the document by the defendant was both proved and admitted by the defendant. 5. As regards consideration he held that the defendant had failed to make out absence of consideration. On the other hand plaintiffs' evidence indicated that the defendant did receive consideration. He further held that the defendant did not deserve facility of instalments. He, therefore, decreed the plaintiffs' suit. 6. The defendant has now preferred this appeal to this Court. 7. Mr. Waghmare for the appellant wanted to contend that the document is a pro-note and therefore could not be acted upon. 8. He secondly contended that the evidence adduced on both sides on the point of consideration clearly established that the document was without consideration. It was therefore urged that the suit ought to have been dismissed. 9. There is absolutely no force in either of these contentions raised by the learned counsel. 10. The document, as it is worded, is clearly a receipt and the decision of the trial Court about its nature and admissibility is correct. It was therefore urged that the suit ought to have been dismissed. 9. There is absolutely no force in either of these contentions raised by the learned counsel. 10. The document, as it is worded, is clearly a receipt and the decision of the trial Court about its nature and admissibility is correct. This document is more akin to a receipt than the one which was considered by their Lordships of the Privy Council in AIR 1938 PC 121 (A). In that case the document was held to be a receipt. There is greater reason to hold the present document to be a receipt. There is no express promise to pay. Mere mention of date of maturity cannot make the document a promissory-note. 11. Moreover the finding of the lower Court as regards admissibility is final and cannot be questioned by the Court of appeal by reason of S.36, Stamp Act. And once the document is held to be admissible there is nothing to prevent the Court from acting on it. 12. The learned counsel referred to the minority view in - 'Mt. Bittan Bibi v. Kuntu Lal', AIR 1952 All 996 (B) and contended that he raised the question in appeal so as to induce the appellate Court to desist from acting upon it. I shall consider this question presently. 13. Section 36, Stamp Act, provides as follows: "No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped." Then follow the proviso to the main section. Section 36, Stamp Act as follows: "Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in S.61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped." 14. Under S.36 an instrument submitted in evidence if not duly stamped should not be admitted in evidence by any person having authority to receive evidence. Further such an instrument should not be acted upon by any such person. It should also not be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any other public officer authorised by law to act upon, register or authenticate it. 15. Further such an instrument should not be acted upon by any such person. It should also not be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any other public officer authorised by law to act upon, register or authenticate it. 15. By S.36 if the instrument has been admitted in evidence such admission shall not be called upon in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. 16. Therefore leaving out the case of other public officers who are required by law to act upon, register or authenticate the same so far as a person authorised by law to receive evidence is concerned S.35 prohibits him from admitting in evidence an instrument which according to his view is not duly stamped. It further prohibits him from acting upon it. This latter prohibition necessarily stands upon his finding that the instrument is not duly stamped. . If he finds that the instrument is duly stamped the finding may be either correct or incorrect. If the finding is correct then there is nothing to prevent him or the appellate Court from receiving the same in evidence or from acting upon it. If the finding be incorrect so far as he is concerned, on his own finding, though incorrect it be, he is bound to act upon it. When the matter reaches the appellate Court the Court of appeal is prevented by S.36, Stamp Act from calling in question the admission in evidence of such an instrument though it be incorrect. The appellate Court therefore by law is bound to hold that the admission is proper which means that the instrument is duly stamped. 17. If that is what the appellate Court is bound to hold how can he refuse to act upon it. Refusal to act on it is only possible if he be free to hold that the instrument is not duly stamped. 18. It was therefore unnecessary for the Legislature to provide separately that such an acting cannot be called in question at a subsequent stage. 19. On this view of the matter the minority view expressed in AIR 1952 All 996 (B) cannot be accepted as correct. 20. As regards consideration also there is no substance in defendant's contention. Burden lay on him to establish that the document was executed by him without receiving any consideration. 21. 19. On this view of the matter the minority view expressed in AIR 1952 All 996 (B) cannot be accepted as correct. 20. As regards consideration also there is no substance in defendant's contention. Burden lay on him to establish that the document was executed by him without receiving any consideration. 21. No evidence was adduced by him beyond his bare word. The defendant is a businessman. He kept accounts. Those were not produced. He was given notice before suit. It reached the defendant's residence and was accepted by some body on his behalf. There was no reply given to this notice. In his written statement he denied the execution of the document or at any rate evaded giving specific reply. 22. On the other hand plaintiff stated that he secured payment to the defendant from Gulabchand Motilal. He examined Jagannath, servant of Gulabchand Motilal, to prove the fact of payment of Rs.6,000 to the defendant from the shop of Gulabchand Motilal. An entry Ex. P/5 was produced in support of this. 23. This evidence of the plaintiff was believed and the statement of the defendant disbelieved by the trial Court. 24. There is hardly any reason to doubt the correctness of this finding. 25. There is therefore no force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.