Judgment :- 1. This appeal has been filed by plaintiffs Nos.1 and 3 to 6 in O. S. No. 98 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry. That was a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 11, 13x60 from the defendants on the allegation that the said amount was due to the plaintiffs from the defendants under a transaction of loan in respect of which a promissory note had also been executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. There were originally only two plaintiffs, namely, the 5th appellant herein who figured as the 1st plaintiff and one Mani Hussain Saheb who was the 2nd plaintiff. The second plaintiff died pending the suit and his legal representatives were thereupon brought on record as supplemental plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 6, Though the loan in question had been taken only by the 1st defendant it was alleged by the plaintiffs that the amount borrowed under the transaction was utilised for the purpose of a partnership business that was being conducted by the 1st defendant along with defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in the name and style of Sree Nithyananda Bus Service and that defendants Nos. Mo 4 had also undertaken liability to repay the loan to the plaintiffs. On this basis a decree was sought against defendants Nos. 2 to 4 also. The 1st defendant filed a written statement in the suit but he subsequently remained ex parte and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 alone contested the suit. 2. The suit was specifically based on the original transaction of loan and not on the promissory note because the note was insufficiently stamped and was not therefore admissible in evidence. The lower court took the view that since the passing of consideration and the execution of the promissory note had taken place on the same day they could not be regarded as independent transactions and since the promissory note evidenced by Ext. A-11 was inadmissible in evidence the plaintiffs were not entitled to fall back on the original cause of action in view of S.91 of the Indian Evidence Act. On this reasoning the lower court held that the suit based on the original cause of action was not maintainable and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to get a decree even against the first defendant who had remained exparte. On this reasoning the lower court held that the suit based on the original cause of action was not maintainable and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to get a decree even against the first defendant who had remained exparte. It was further held by the court below that the claim put forward by the plaintiffs against defendants Nos. 2 to 4 was unsustainable since there was no privity of contract as between the plaintiffs and those defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge was also of the view that the Ist plaintiff in whose favour the 2nd plaintiff had assigned the right to realise the debt from the defendants could not be regarded as a holder in due course or a bona fide transferee of the debt and that the assignment deed evidenced by Ext. A-1 executed by the 2nd plaintiff in favour of the 1st plaintiff was not supported by consideration Finally the lower court also found that the endorsement of payment contained in the promissory note was not properly proved, and that hence the suit was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the plaint claim was barred by limitation. It is against the decree of the court below dismissing the suit on the basis of the aforesaid findings that the plaintiffs aforementioned have come up to this court with this appeal. 3. The plaintiff's case is that the Ist defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,400 on 27th November, 1962, from the 2nd plaintiff and that after deducing certain payments made by the 1st defendant towards the said debt Rs. 11,135.60 was outstanding as due on the date of the plaint. The specific plea put forward in the plaint is that the promissory note was executed by the first defendant only in acknowledgment of the borrowing which had already taken place and since the said note was found to be insufficiently stamped the suit was based on the original contract of loan. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant he expressly admitted that a sum of Rs. 8 400 had been borrowed by him from the 2nd plaintiff and that a document was executed by him acknowledging the said borrowing to which defendants Nos. 2 and 4 were witnesses. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant he expressly admitted that a sum of Rs. 8 400 had been borrowed by him from the 2nd plaintiff and that a document was executed by him acknowledging the said borrowing to which defendants Nos. 2 and 4 were witnesses. This is what the 1st defendant has said in his written statement: "It is true that this defendant was a partner in Sri Nityananda Bus Service along with defendants 2 to 4 and for the purpose of the said Bus Service partnership concern a sum of Rs. 8,400 was borrowed from the 2nd plaintiff by this defendant. To the document acknowledging this borrowing defendants 2 and 4 are witnesses " The contention taken by the first defendant in the subsequent portion of the written statement is that in connection with the dissolution of the partnership as between himself and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 there was a suit O S. No. 44 of 1964 in the Sub Court, Tellicherry which ultimately ended in a compromise and that as per the terms of the said compromise the debt due under the promissory note executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd plaintiff herein was to be paid by the partnership concern. A further plea put forward by the Ist defendant in the written statement is that in the settlement of accounts of the partnership business defendants Nos. 2 to 4 had undertaken to discharge the debt payable to the 2nd plaintiff and that hence those defendants alone were liable to answer for the suit claim. In Para.3 and 4 of the written statement the first defendant had specifically admitted the truth of the endorsement of payment made by him in the promissory note. 4. Whatever might be the position regarding the sustainability of the plaint claim as against defendants Nos. 2 to 4, we are unable to find any legal justification for the action of the court below in dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant had specifically admitted that he had borrowed the sum of Rs, 8,400 from the 2nd plaintiff on 27th November, 1962 and that the said debt was outstanding as payable to the 2nd plaintiff. The 1st defendant had specifically admitted that he had borrowed the sum of Rs, 8,400 from the 2nd plaintiff on 27th November, 1962 and that the said debt was outstanding as payable to the 2nd plaintiff. It is also clearly stated by the 1st defendant that the promissory note had been executed by him only in acknowledgment of the loan that had already been advanced to him by the 2nd plaintiff, thereby making it clear that the transaction of loan was anterior to and independent of the execution of the promissory note the legal position is well established that in such circumstances the creditor is entitled to maintain a suit for recovery of the debt based on the original contract of loan in case the promissory note is found to be detective in any respect. The fact that the promissory note was executed on the very day on which the loan was also advanced does not affect this position. S.91 of the Indian Evidence Act will have no application to a case like the present one where the promissory note is executed only in confirmation of a contract of loan already entered into between the parties and it merely acknowledges the tact of such a borrowing having already taken place. Ia such a case, merely because the promissory note is found to be insufficiently stamped and hence incapable of being produced in evidence before the court, the creditor who has advanced the loan is not precluded from pursuing his ordinary legal remedy of enforcing repayment by a suit based on the transaction of loan. It is useful to remember in this context that the Stamp Act has been enacted only as a fiscal measure to secure revenue for the State and its provisions are not intended to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to deny his obligations under a contract and defeat the just claims of an opponent see Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Mis Dilip Construction Co. AIR. 1969 S.C.1238. The view taken by the court below, that S.91 of the Indian Evidence Act preludes the plaintiffs from maintaining the present suit on the strength of the original contract of loan, is therefore erroneous and unsustainable. 5. The 1st defendant has specifically admitted in the written statement the truth of endorsements of payment towards the suit debt made by him in Ext. A-11 Although Ext. 5. The 1st defendant has specifically admitted in the written statement the truth of endorsements of payment towards the suit debt made by him in Ext. A-11 Although Ext. A-11 is inadmissible as a promissory note the endorsements subsequently made in the document by the 1st defendant recording the factum of the payments made by him towards the suit debt are admissible in evidence since they do not form an integral part of the promissory note proper and such endorsement did not require to be stamped. The first endorsement was made on 25th October 1963 within one year of the date of borrowing. The next endorsement was made on 29th December 1963. The last endorsement was made on 1st November 1966 on which date the debt was alive by reason of the second endorsement aforementioned made on 29th December 1963. The suit was instituted on 16th November, 1968, well within three years from the date of the last endorsement. The truth of the endorsements having been admitted by the 1st defendant it is impossible to support the finding of the lower court that the plaint claim was barred by limitation on the date of institution of the suit. We have no hesitation to set aside the said finding. 6. We are also unable to agree with the view expressed by the court below that the assignment of the debt by the 2nd plaintiff in favour of the 1st plaintiff made as per Ext. A-1 was not supported by consideration. In his testimony as Pw.1 the Ist plaintiff has sworn that he paid to the 2nd plaintiff Rs. 10,000 as consideration for Ext A-1. Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to discredit the testimony of the witness. We, therefore, hold that Ext. A-1 was supported by consideration and that the 1st plaintiff is entitled to maintain the action for recovery of the plaint debt. Further in as much as the assignor had also joined in filing the suit as 2nd plaintiff it was the height of hyper technicality on the part of the court below to have held that the suit was liable to be dismissed merely because in the prayer portion of the plaintiffs relief was claimed in favour of the 1st plaintiff on the basis of the assignment Ext. A-1. 7. A-1. 7. Advertence has already been made to the fact that the 1st defendant remained ex parte after filing a written statement wherein he virtually admitted the truth of the plaint claim. The plaintiffs have prayed for a decree against defendants 2 to 4 also only on the basis of the arrangement said to have been entered into as between defendants No. 2 to 4 and the 1st defendant at the time of dissolution of the partnership consisting of all the defendants. It is said that as per that arrangement the amount outstanding under the loan advanced by the 2nd plaintiff to the 1st defendant should be discharged out of the partnership funds in the hands of defendants Nos. 2 to 4. Admittedly the 2nd plaintiff was not a party to this arrangement. There was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendants Nos 2 to 4. Hence whatever might have been the understanding as between the 1st defendant and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 that will not give rise to any cause of action for the plaintiff as against defendants Nos. 2 to 4. On this ground the claim put forward in the plaint against defendants Nos. 2 to 4 has to fail was, therefore, unnecessary for the court below to investigate into the controversies raised by defendants Nos. 2 to 4 as against the 1st defendant or to enter any findings in respect of those matters. Those observations and findings of the court below, which pertain to the disputes inter se as between the 1st defendant and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are hereby set aside and those questions are left open. 8. In the result,. we reverse the decree of the lower court in so far as it has dismissed the suit against the 1st defendant. There will be a decree in favour of the Ist plaintiff for recovery of the plaint amount from the 1st defendant with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit till date of realisation or three years whichever is earlier. The decree of the court below dismissing the suit as against defendants No 2 to 4 will stand confirmed. The parties will bear their respective costs throughout.