Judgment :- 1. Defendant in a suit on a promissory note is the appellant. He admits the execution of the note; but raised the contentions: (1) that the note was insufficiently stamped and thus the suit on this note was not maintainable; (2) that he was compelled to execute the note and thus there was no. voluntary execution or payment of consideration. 2. The trial court rejected both the contentions and decreed the suit. Hence this appeal Both these contentions are pressed in this court also. 3. The suit pronote was for Rs. 9, 538/-. It was affixed with revenue stamp of the value of 40 paise. It should have been affixed with revenue stamp worth 25 paise and refugee stamp of 10 paise. After the suit was filed, it was sent to the Collector who certified thus: "Certified that the full stamp duty with which the Promissory Note executed in favour of Velayudhan Sarada. Champakada Thodiyil House, Ollal, Koonayil Cherry, Peravoor Village by Sri. Raghavan Raghuvaran Champakada Puthen Veedu, Koonayil Cherry, Paravoor Village is chargeable has been paid." 4. The suit continues to be only on the promissory note and not on the original cause of action. The contention that is advanced is that the non affixture of the refugee stamp is fatal to the cause, and no certificate of the Collector can cure this defect. It is, therefore, necessary to refer briefly to to the relevant statutory provisions and to advert to some of the decisions cited. 5. In order to meet the expenditure on the relief of Bangla Desh refugees, it was decided that both the Centre and the States should levy additional tax, duty or surcharge on "instruments of mass circulation falling within the respective fields of taxation and the additional revenues so realised by the States would be placed by the States at the disposal of the Centre". To achieve this object, the Stamp and Excise Duties (Amendment Act) 1971, Act 44 of 1971 was enacted which came into force on the 15th November, 1971. S.3-A of the Act, alone relevant for the purpose, reads thus: "3A. Instruments chargeable with additional duty. (1) Every instrument chargeable with duty under S.3 read with Article No. 13,14,27,37,47,49,52,53 or 62(a) of Schedule I shall, in addition to such duty, be chargeable with a duty of ten paise. S.3-A of the Act, alone relevant for the purpose, reads thus: "3A. Instruments chargeable with additional duty. (1) Every instrument chargeable with duty under S.3 read with Article No. 13,14,27,37,47,49,52,53 or 62(a) of Schedule I shall, in addition to such duty, be chargeable with a duty of ten paise. (2) The additional duty with which any instrument is chargeable under subsection (1) shall be paid and such payment shall be indicated on such instrument by means of adhesive stamps bearing the inscription "refugee relief" whether with or without any other design, picture or inscription. (3) Except as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act. shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the additional duties chargeable under sub-section (1) in respect of the instruments referred to therein as they apply in relation to the duties chargeable under S.3 in respect of those instruments". 6. The Act was repealed by the Central Act 13 of 1973 with effect from 1st April, 1973. The suit pr6 note was executed on 1-11-1972, when the 1971 amendment Act was in force. 7. S.3-A extracted above shows: (a) that there is an additional levy of stamp duty of 10 paise. (b) that the payment of this duty shall be indicated by the affixture of adhesive stamps bearing the inscription "refugee relief". (c) the provision of the Indian Stamp Act will apply in relation to this additional levy also. 8. S 35 of the Stamp Act (Corresponding to S.34 of the Kerala Act) statutorily inhibits the reception of any instrument chargeable with duty if it is not duly stamped. A promissory note 'not duly stamped' comes thus under this statutory embargo. The proviso to the Section which enables the curing of this defect on payment of the deficiency and a penalty is not applicable to negotiable instruments. S.37 of the Act (corresponding to S.36 of the State Act) however provides thus "The (State Government) may make rules providing that, where an instrument bears a stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description, it may, on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, be certified to be duly stamped, and any instrument so certified shall then be deemed to have been duly stamped as from the date of its execution." 9. In exercise of the powers, the Indian Stamp (Kerala) R.1960 were made and R.17 reads thus: "When an instrument bears a stamp of proper amount but of improper description the Collector may, on payment of the duty with which the instrument is chargeable certify by an endorsement that it is duly stamped." 10. It is not disputed that the promissory note was affixed with adhesive stamps of the proper amount. Additional doty payable under the Act in respect of this instrument is thus collected. But stamps of improper description were affixed in that, ordinary revenue stamps and not revenue stamps with the inscription of "refugee relief" were affixed. If stamps of improper description were used, there is only a statutory impropriety curable by a certificate issued under S.37 and the rules framed thereunder and no illegality which goes to the root of the matter invalidating the instrument from its inception. S.35 and 37 of the Indian Stamp Act operate in two different fields. S.35 applies where there is deficiency in stamp duty. S.37 is invoked when there is no deficiency; but there is a discrepancy in the description of the stamp. S.37 can thus apply only to those cases where there is no loss of revenue, but the mode of collection is defective. In the case of a promissory note, deficient stamp duty cannot be collected later and no penalty can cure this statutory infirmity. This is expressly provided in the proviso to S.35. But advisedly, no such proviso is inserted in S.37. The reason is obvious. An affixture of stamp with wrong description even in a promissory note is a curable defect when a certificate is issued under S.37 of the Act. The object and purpose of the legislation will be defeated if by a judicial interpretation, the proviso to S.35 is incorporated in S.37 as well. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that in this case, the promissory note was sufficiently stamped, the additional levy was in fact, collected and the impropriety of not affixing refugee stamp of 10 paise was cured by the certificate of the District Collector. Now to the decisions: 11. In the earliest of the cases, in Tukaram v. Sonaji 10, Ind. Cas. Now to the decisions: 11. In the earliest of the cases, in Tukaram v. Sonaji 10, Ind. Cas. 702 (Nag.) (D)-it was observed thus: "When the duty payable on an instrument is one anna and one anna has been paid to the Government by the purchase of a Government stamp of that amount, though not of the description which under the Act and rules should be used for the instrument in question, then, in our opinion, the instrument 'bears a stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description', and should not be classed as unstamped though the stamp used, instead of being a wrong description of revenue stamp (a term not used in the Stamp Act) happens to be a stamp of some other department of the same Government, whether judicial, postal, forest or telegraph. This view seems to us in accordance with equity and supported by the facts, that not only is there no definition of the word 'stamp' or use of the term 'revenue stamp' in the Stamp Act, but that rules that have been made under that Act allow the use of postage stamps in certain cases and of court-fee stamps in others". 12. This decision was followed by the Madhya Bharat High Court in Ranjitsingh v. Behramji (AIR. 1957 Madh-B. 181), wherein it was held thus: "Applying these principles to the present case if the object of the Stamp Act is to obtain revenue for the Government, then the contention of Mr. Garg that the stamp of Madhya Bharat was not used falls to the ground; for fiscal purposes today there is no difference between the Government of India and the State of Madhya Bharat. If it is not a Stamp of Madhya Bharat Government and is a revenue stamp of the Government of India, at the most it is 'a stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description' within the meaning of S.36 of the Indore Stamp Act (which corresponds to S.37 of the Indian Stamp Act), and can be certified to be only stamped by the Collector within the meaning of this section". 13. In Mortis v. D'Souza (AIR. 1932 Madras 390 (FB )) the question was whether a promissory note stamped with quarter anna postage stamps can be validated by the Collector. It was held, following the Privy Council ruling in Ma Pwa May v. S.R.M.M.A. Chettiar Firm (AIR 1929 PC. 13. In Mortis v. D'Souza (AIR. 1932 Madras 390 (FB )) the question was whether a promissory note stamped with quarter anna postage stamps can be validated by the Collector. It was held, following the Privy Council ruling in Ma Pwa May v. S.R.M.M.A. Chettiar Firm (AIR 1929 PC. 279) that the Collector could validate the same. The observations of the Privy Council relied on were these: " Their Lordships entertain no doubt that in pursuance of this section and the rules thereunder the Collector would have been entitled in this case to exercise the powers given by the section. The contention to the contrary is that the section has no reference to any stamp except a revenue stamp pure and simple, and that a revenue stamp surcharged 'court-fee* is not within the meaning of the section a stamp of improper description. This appears to their Lordships to be putting too narrow a construction upon a remedial section, and their Lordships would not be prepared to assent to the opinion of the High Court of Allahabad in Reference under S.57 of Act 2 of 1899 (2) so far as it concerns court-fee stamps in their present form". 14. A different note was struck by a learned single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in N. D. Erranna v. Modappa (AIR 1963 Andhra Pradesh 457). Referring to the Nagpur and the Madhya Bharat decisions, the learned judge expressed thus: "This decision did not consider the effect of the proviso to S.35 of the Indian Stamp Act and I am unable to endorse the view taken by the learned Judge. If the proviso to S.35 (a) is absolute in its terms as I think it is there is no question of any exception being made in favour of a promissory note if it bears "a stamp of improper description." 15. With great respect, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, for, His Lordship wrongly thought that the proviso to S.35 applied to S.37. There was no justification to read in S.37 a non-existent proviso which defeats the very purpose for which S.37 was enacted. 16. The decision in Anoop Chand v. Nathmal (AIR. There was no justification to read in S.37 a non-existent proviso which defeats the very purpose for which S.37 was enacted. 16. The decision in Anoop Chand v. Nathmal (AIR. 1965 Rajasthan 114) follows the Andhra decision but it has to be noted that in the Rajasthan case the learned judge found that the promissory note was properly stamped. There was thus no necessity to consider this point. The learned judge has not given any reasons either. This decision is not helpful to the appellant. 17. The court below was therefore right in admitting the promissory note in evidence after the certificate from the Collector was obtained. 18. The appellant-defendant has also a contention that the promissory note was executed under coercion and threat and there was no consideration either. He admits execution of an earlier promissory note, but says that the same has been closed and it has already become time barred. The onus to prove these facts is on the defendant. There is no acceptable evidence to support this contention. The lower court has rightly rejected this plea. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. As the parties are said to be related to each other, they will suffer their costs in this court.