EAPEN Vs. BANK OF DECCAN LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-Bank instituted a suit on May 21, 1959, for money due under a promissory note dated November 22,1954, by the defendant. To save limitation the Bank relied on an acknowledgment, Ext. P2 dated December 31, 1956. THE contention of the defendant is that Ext. P2, for want of stamp as required under Art. 1 of the Travancore-Cochin Stamp Act, 1125, is not a legal document which can be acted on for any purpose in a judicial proceeding and if it is put off the suit is beyond time. THE Court below has repelled the contention, held the suit to be in time and decreed it. Hence this appeal by the defendant.

(2.) ART. 1 of the Travancore-Cochin Stamp Act,1 of 1125, reads: Table:#1 It is evident from the wording of the ARTicle that, unless the acknowledgment is signed "in order to supply evidence" of the debt acknowledged therein, it will not be within its purview. The suit debt is admittedly covered by a promissory note. Ext. P2 was an intimation by the Bank that the defendant's D. P. N. account as been balanced on 31-12-1956 showed Rs. 48881-0-8 as due, to which the Bank has appended the words "i hereby confirm the correctness of the above statement" whereto the defendant has subscribed his signature. It is obvious that the dominant intention in Ext. P2 was not "to supply evidence" of the debt under the promissory note, but only to affirm the correctness of the amount thereof on the particular date and is therefore outside the definition of the ARTicle. Dadi Musali Naidu v. Budda Veera Naidu (AIR. 1958 A. P. 88) is an authority in point with which I agree respectfully. Ext. P2 is therefore a legal acknowledgment that can be availed of by the plaintiff under S. 19, Limitation Act, 1908; and if period is counted from its date, the suit is in time.