J.N. SARMA, J- This appeal has been filed by the defendants. Following are the substantial questions of law :- 1. The Ext.-l so called hand note being legally not proved and the defendant No. 1 having denied executing the same the lower appellate Court was wrong in decreeing the suit. 2. The thumb impression Ext. 1 (1) in the so-called hand note being without endorsement and the defendant No. 1 having denied putting her thumb impression the lower appellate Court was wrong in decreeing the suit. 3. The Ext. 1 is not a hand note rather it was a bond which was not properly stamped and was not admitted into evidence as required by law. 2. The suit was brought on the basis of a piece of paper with a revenue stamp of 20 paise wherein there was a thumb impression of some body and it was endorsed as follows:- "RTI of Smti Misri Maya" But that endorsement was not signed by anybody. Further there were as many as 3 witnesses named on this piece of paper. The name of the person from whom the money was taken that also does not find place in the paper (Ext. 1). No doubt the law is that the name of such person can be gathered/collected/determined from evidence and if it can be established that the plaintiff gave the money the decree may be passed. But the question in this case is that it cannot be deemed to be a hand note as it was insufficiently stamped. The defendant in her written statement as well as in the evidence categorically denied tfye execution of the so-called hand note as well as receipt of consideration mentioned therein. So the presumption which is available under Section 118 of N.J. Act shall not be available to the plaintiff and the plaintiff will be bound under the law to prove passing of consideration as well as the execution of hand note. In the instant case that was not proved and the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit. On appeal i.e. in Money Appeal No. 1/94 the learned Assistant District Judge, Tinsukia lost sight of that aspect of the matter and it came to the finding as foliows:- “The plaintiff proved the execution of the kutcha hand note by defendant No. 1 as per provisions of Section 67 of the Evidence Act.” 3. On appeal i.e. in Money Appeal No. 1/94 the learned Assistant District Judge, Tinsukia lost sight of that aspect of the matter and it came to the finding as foliows:- “The plaintiff proved the execution of the kutcha hand note by defendant No. 1 as per provisions of Section 67 of the Evidence Act.” 3. Regarding the evidence of the defendants, it was found by the appellate Court as follows:- "I find that the defendant No. 1 could not make any dent on the evidence of the plaintiff and her two witnesses on their claim of the genuineness of Ext. 1." Having arrived on this finding the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. 4. In AIR 1964 Assam 138 Jatindra Mohan Deb Laskar - Vs-Khara Singh and others the Single Judge of this Court has pointed out that insufficient stamped hand note is inadmissible for any purpose and it was further pointed out that such a document will be mere scrap of paper and it does not give any right to the plaintiff to get a decree. Same is the position in this case. 5. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned appellate Court stands quashed. The judgment of the learned Munsiff shall stand restored.