MANILAL MOTIRAM MEHTA Vs. NATWARLAL GOKALDAS SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 2,000, future interest on it and costs of the suit out of the estate of deceased Bhulabhai Gokuldas, to whom various amounts had been advanced by him from time to time between December 13, 1936, and January 27, 1938, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are Bhulabhai's brothers, contended that they were separate from him, that none of his property was in their possession and that the suit was time-barred. The suit was filed on November 18, 1940, and the only amount advanced within three years before suit was the last item of Rs. 25 paid to Bhulabhai on January 27, 1938. But the plaintiff alleged in his plaint that on November 19, 1937, Bhulabhai had endorsed an acknowledgment of his liability in his khata in the ledger, and that the bar of limitation was saved thereby under Section 19, of the Indian Limitation Act, That endorsement being unstamped, both the Courts below held it inadmissible in evidence, as it amounted to an acknowledgment Which required a stamp of one anna under Article 1 of the first schedule to the Indian Stamp Act. The plaintiff was, therefore, given a decree for Rs. 25 and Rs. 4-4-0 as interest thereon with proportionate costs.

(2.) THE endorsement in the khata runs as follows : Rs. a. p. 1,679 9 3 due; as principal. 147 12 0 due for interest (details are setout ). 1,827 5 8 found : due, after understandingaccounts. (Signed)Shah Bhulabhai Gokuldas.

(3.) IN every case the primary question is whether the document was brought into existence with the dominant intention of supplying evidence of the debt, and this must be determined both from the wording of the document and the surrounding circumstances.