LAWS(KAR)-1961-8-2

M NSETTY Vs. V ASUBBIAH SETTY

Decided On August 04, 1961
M.N.SETTY Appellant
V/S
V.A.SUBBIAH SETTY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point for determination in this revision petition is whether the entry in an account book is admissible in evidence as contended by the petitioner in this case, or whether it is an acknowledgment of liability in order to supply evidence of such debt and hence is inadmissible as not having been duty stamped. In the view of the learned Civil Judge, Kolar it is of the latter category and not being duty stamped is inadmissible in evidence.

(2.) The facts leading up to this petition are briefly as follows : The plaintiff who is the petitioner before this Court filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts. He alternately prayed for payment of Rs. 9,853/-. According to the plaintiff, he and the defendant were partners though this fact is denied by the defendant. On 31-12-1954, accounts of the partnership were looked into and the balance was struck which showed that there was a loss of Rs. 17,000/- and odd. As per plaintiff- petitioner this loss was shared by both the parties, and half of the amount of the loss was carried on to the personal account of each of the partners viz. the plaintiff and the defendant. Defendant is the respondent before this Court. On 31-12-1954, there is an entry to the effect that a sum of Rs. 9853-0-3 is due in the 'katha lekka (account) of the defendant Subbiah setty. Underneath that the defendant has put his signature. This signature is not affixed on a stamp.

(3.) It is argued by Sri Seshagiri Rao, the learned advocate for the petitioner that all that the defendant has done is, after striking the balance the accounts, he has signed it indicating thereby that the account is correct. It was not the intention of the parties at that it should be treated as supplying evidence of any debt. According to the arguments addressed before the Court, there was no litigation between them. The partnership continued even thereafter. Under the circumstances does it come within the mischief of Article 1 of Schedule I, the relevant provision of which runs as follows?