ORDER J.N. Takru, J. - This suit has been brought by the Official Liquidator, Agricultural Bank of Garhwal Ltd. (in Liquidation) for the recovery of Rs. 12, 382.55 paise with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum and costs from Sri Bishan Singh on the allegations, that on the 3rd July, 1948 he took a loan of Rs. 4,000/- from the Plaintiff at the rate of 12% per annum compoundable yearly, and returnable within one year, and in lieu thereof executed the bond Ex. 1 and the receipt Ex. 3. The Defendant, however, did not pay back the amount due within the stipulated period but made ten payments towards the loan and interest amounting to Rs. 4, 441/- , on 23-5-1951, 18-7-1952, 15-7-1955, 7-4-1956, 17-11-1956, 8-6-1957, 10-5-1958, 10-7-1958, 22-5-1959 and 6-6-1959 and also made acknowledgments of his liability in writing en 18-7-1952, 15-7-1955, 13-6-1958, 18-3-1959, 7-4-1960 and 8-3-1963. He, however, did not pay the balance due from him towards the principal and interest, inspite of demand and notice. The present suit was, therefore, brought on 23-3-1966, with the leave of the Company Judge for the reliefs stated above. 2. The Defendant contested the suit. In his written statement he admitted that he took a loan for Rs. 4,000/- from the Plaintiff, but stated that he had paid up the entire amount. He denied having made any of the acknowledgments referred in the plaint, and stated that an officer of the Bank used to visit his village occasionally and he used to obtain his signatures en papers without explaining their contents to him. He further pleaded that the suit was barred by time and that the rate of interest was usurious as he was an agriculturist. 3. On these pleadings, the following agreed issues were framed by Manchanda, J.: 1. Whether the bond dated 3-7-1948 was not executed in accordance with law? 2. Whether Defendant No. 1 made any acknowledgment on 18-7-1952, 15-7-1955, 13-6-1958, 18-3-1959, 7-4-1960 and 8-3-1963, if so what is its effect? 3. Whether the claim made by the Plaintiff is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the interest claimed is excessive and is liable to be reduced. 5. What is the amount due against the Defendant No. 1 in respect of the bill dated 3-7-1948? 6. What is the relief to which the Plaintiff is entitled? 3. Whether the claim made by the Plaintiff is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the interest claimed is excessive and is liable to be reduced. 5. What is the amount due against the Defendant No. 1 in respect of the bill dated 3-7-1948? 6. What is the relief to which the Plaintiff is entitled? I shall take up these issues in the order stated above. Issue No. 1 : The bond in question Ex. 1 and its receipt Ex. 3 were neither admitted nor denied by the Defendant. The Plaintiff, therefore, examined Sri Dharmanand, one of its employees, to prove them. Sri Dharmanand proved both those documents. However, in his statement in this Court, the Defendant admitted his signatures on both those documents. The bond (Ex. 1), on the face of it, appears to be in accordance with law and the Defendant's Learned Counsel was unable to bring anything to my notice to show otherwise. The first issue is accordingly decided in the affirmative. Issue No. 2 : The Plaintiff's witness Sri Dharmanand proved the acknowledgments alleged to have been made by the Defendant between 23-5-1951 and 8-3-1963. According to the unshaken evidence of this witness he personally went to the house of the Defendant with the Confirmation Memoranda Exs. 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14, and explained the accounts to him, and the Defendant after being satisfied about their correctness, signed those Memoranda, undertaking to pay the amounts due from him upto those dates with interest. The witness proved the signatures of the Defendant on those acknowledgments suit on the legal objection of the Defendant's Learned Counsel--to be indicated presently they were not exhibited. Those signatures were also neither admitted nor denied by the Defendant but in his statement in court he admitted them. As stated earlier the case of the Defendant as set out in his written statement was that he used to put those signatures on the assurance of the Plaintiff's employee, who came with them without his telling him what those documents were, though in his statement in this Court he amplified it by saying that the said employee used to tell him that they were his T.A. bills. This explanation cannot be accepted (1) because it is not mentioned in the written statement and (2) because it was not even put to Sri Dharmanand when he was in the witness-box. This explanation cannot be accepted (1) because it is not mentioned in the written statement and (2) because it was not even put to Sri Dharmanand when he was in the witness-box. Besides it is not possible to believe that the Defendant would have blindly put his signatures to such a large (number) of documents without even once caring to enquire from Sri Dharmanand why he had to take his signatures on those bills every time. I am therefore satisfied that the Defendant put his signatures on the documents Exts. 9 to 14 knowing that he was thereby acknowledging his liability to pay the amounts due from him upto those dates with interest. The Learned Counsel for the Defendant contended that as the acknowledgments relied upon by the Plaintiff were promissory notes and not acknowledgments in law, and as they did not bear the requisite stamps on them, they were hit by Section 35 of the Stamp Act and inadmissible in evidence with the result that the suit was to be held to be time barred. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties lam satisfied that this contention is not sound. The acknowledgments in question are all in the same terms and read as follows: I/We hereby confirm the correctness of the balance shown in my/our cash/credit/overdraft Loan Account No...at the close of half year ending...as amounting to Rs. ...(In words)...as debit in my/our above account and I/we promise to pay the same with interest on demand. Under Article 1 of Schedule IB of the Stamp Act an acknowledgment of a debit exceeding Rs. 20/- signed by a debtor in order to supply evidence has to bear a stamp duty of 25 paise provided that such acknowledgment does not contain any promise to pay the debt or any stipulation to pay interest etc. As the present acknowledgment also contains a promise to pay the debt with interest, it is obvious that the proviso to this Article applies to these acknowledgments and they do not therefore, require the stamp duty mentioned therein. I shall now proceed to consider whether the said acknowledgments are what they purport to be or are promissory; notes as contended for by the Defendant's Learned Counsel. I shall now proceed to consider whether the said acknowledgments are what they purport to be or are promissory; notes as contended for by the Defendant's Learned Counsel. A promissory note is defined in Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act as follows: "Promissory-note" means a promissory-note as defined by the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, it also includes a note promising the payment of any sum of money out of any particular fund which may or may not be available or upon any condition or contingency which may or may not be performed or happen. As the acknowledgments in question clearly do not fall under category of the notes mentioned in the latter part of this definition we have to refer to the definition of "promissory-note" in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a "promissory-note" is defined as "an instrument in writing (not being a Bank note or a currency-note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay certain sum of money only to, or to the order of a certain person or to the bearer of the instrument". Thus under this definition three conditions have to be fulfilled before a note can be regarded as a promissory-note, namely (1) that it should, be signed by the maker and should contain an unconditional undertaking to pay (2) the undertaking should be to pay a certain and definite sum of money and (3) that the amount should be payable on demand. If any of these conditions is lacking the note cannot be a promissory-note under the Negotiable Instrument Act, and if it is not a promissory-note under that Act then it will not be hit by Section 35 of the Stamp Act, and it will not be inadmissible in evidence. Thus tested the acknowledgments in question cannot be held to be promissory-notes as they are lacking in one essential attribute of a promissory-note, viz. that the amounts which are payable there-under are not certain and definite inasmuch as the rate of interest is not stated therein. Had the rate of interest also been stated therein then the amounts would have been certain and definite as all that had to be done was to add the interest due upto the date of demand on the amount mentioned as principal therein. Had the rate of interest also been stated therein then the amounts would have been certain and definite as all that had to be done was to add the interest due upto the date of demand on the amount mentioned as principal therein. But in the absence pf the rate of interest the amount which would be due on the date of the demand could not be certain or definite. Thus the second condition required of a promissory-note is wanting in the present acknowledgments and it would therefore snot be correct to regard them as promissory-notes, and they remain what they purport to be, i.e. acknowledgments pure and simple. On behalf of the Defendant reliance was placed on the decision in Pandit Sushil Chandra Chaturvedi v. Wali Ullah 1941 AWR (HC) 46. The document which fell for consideration in that case was in the following terms: Whereas with regard to glass of Hanuman Glass Works account is due from us, we therefore acknowledge and promise to pay on demand Rs. 1,718/- with interest at 2 per cent per annum. The learned Judges who had to consider this document held that it was a promissory-note. It is significant to note that the learned Judges did not hold this document to be a promissory-note on its plain language but held it as such, on the ground that the surrounding circumstances justified the conclusion that the document was regarded by the parties as a promissory-note. Thus the reason on which the aforesaid decision rests does not provide any assistance in the interpretation of the acknowledgments with which this case is concerned, though on the view expressed by me above the document involved in that case could have been regarded as a promissory-note on its down language. No direct authority for, Or against, the view taken by me was cited at Bar during the arguments, but while I was dictating the judgment, Sri H.N. Seth, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff drew my attention to the decision in Raghunath Prasad Vs. Mangi Lal, AIR 1960 Raj 20 in which a similar view has been taken. No direct authority for, Or against, the view taken by me was cited at Bar during the arguments, but while I was dictating the judgment, Sri H.N. Seth, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff drew my attention to the decision in Raghunath Prasad Vs. Mangi Lal, AIR 1960 Raj 20 in which a similar view has been taken. It was held in that case that, A document which contained a promise to pay a sum of money with interest but does not specify the rate of interest is not a promissory-note within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act as the sum payable tender it is not certain as required u/s 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I am therefore satisfied that the acknowledgments in question cannot be promissory-notes, which, for want of necessary stamps, were inadmissible u/s 35 of the Stamp Act. In this view of the matter my finding on Issue No. 2 is that the Defendant made the acknowledgments, detailed therein of which the first acknowledgments was dated 23-5-1951 and the last acknowledgment was dated 8-3-1963. Issue No. 3 : As already held under issue No. 2, the last acknowledgment which the Defendant made was on 8-3-1963, while the first acknowledgment was made on 23-5-1951. The acknowledgments, in question, as also the evidence of the Plaintiff's witness, Sri Dharmanand, show, that the intervening acknowledgments were all made which within three years of the preceding acknowledgments. As all the acknowledgments were made within time and the suit was instituted on 3-3-1966, it must be held to have been filed within time, though if the law of limitation prevailing in the State of Tehri-Garhwal before its merger with this State were to be taken into account, there was still a little over three years left for the limitation to run out. My finding on the issue No. 3, therefore, is that the suit is not barred by limitation. Issue No. 4 : The rate of interest mentioned in the Bond, Ex. I, is Re. 1/- per cent per month compoundable yearly. The Learned Counsel for the Defendant, beyond contending that the interest was excessive, was unable to quote any law in support of his contention. There is thus no justification for interfering with the stipulated rate of interest. Issue No. 4 : The rate of interest mentioned in the Bond, Ex. I, is Re. 1/- per cent per month compoundable yearly. The Learned Counsel for the Defendant, beyond contending that the interest was excessive, was unable to quote any law in support of his contention. There is thus no justification for interfering with the stipulated rate of interest. Besides I am otherwise also satisfied that the aforesaid rate of interest cannot be regarded as excessive or unconscionable as the loan was an unsecured one. It might be mentioned here in passing that the Defendant in his statement in Court stated that there was no agreement for the payment of interest. This claim of his is clearly false, (1) because it was not taken in his written statement where all that was said was that the interest of Rs. 12% per annum compoundable yearly was against law and was unconscionable, and (2) because if there had been no agreement for the payment of interest the Defendant would not have paid Rs. 441/- more towards his loan. When he was cross-examined as to why he paid Rs. 441/- more, if there was no stipulation for the payment of interest, he was unable to give a coherent answer. The Defendant has consequently failed to prove his case that no interest was payable on the loan iii question and he has also failed to show that he was entitled to a reduction therein. My finding on issue No. 4 therefore is that the stipulated interest is neither excessive nor can it be reduced. Issue Nos. 5 and 6 : The Plaintiff claimed Rs. 12,382.55 P. on account of the principal and interest upto the date of the filing of the suit. It was not disputed on behalf of the Defendant that if interest was calculated at the rate claimed by the Plaintiff, the amount claimed was not correct. The Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to a decree for Rs. 12.382.55P with the usual pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum in addition to his costs of the suit and I decree his suit accordingly.