DADI MUSALI NAIDU Vs. BUDDA VEERU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point in this Revision Petition is whether Exhibit A-1 is an acknowledgment of liability which requires a stamp under Article 1 of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act, as amended in Madras, and therefore ought not to have been admitted in evidence. There is no other defence to the plaintiff's action now remaining.

(2.) The petitioner filed the suit, out of which this revision petition has arisen, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 234-3-0 and other incidental reliefs. The defendant was supplied with articles from time to time in the plaintiff's coffee-hotel and eventually a sum of Rs. 234-3-0 became due and payable by the defendant. On the 3rd of February, 1953, the defendant signed in the account-book of the plaintiff. To a registered notice by the plaintiff demanding recovery of this amount, the defendant sent no reply. In the written statement filed by "him, the defendant admitted the fact that he became indebted to the plaintiff on account for the foodstuffs which were supplied to him or to his son but he pleaded that he paid the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 100 on one occasion and another sum of Rs, 200 on, another occasion. The learned District Munsif found against the defendant and negatived hjs plea of discharge. But on the second point raised by the defendant, namely, that the suit was barred by time, the learned District Munsif held in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit as he reached the conclusion that Exhibit A-1 was an acknowledgment which supplied evidence of the debt within the meaning of Article 1 of Schedule 1-A of the Madras Stamp (Amendment) Act. Article 1 reads thus :-

(3.) To bring the case within the ambit of Article 1 it is necessary that the acknowledgment must be written or signed by, or on behalf of a debtor in order to supply evidence of such debt. In deciding whether a given acknowledgment is one falling within Article 1 the question to be considered is whether it is given with the dominant intention to supply evidence of the debt. The question whether the document is executed with intent to supply evidence of the debt is to be gathered from the circumstances of each case. An acknowledgment of the correctness of an account is not one requiring a stamp. Vide Subbaroyudu v. Narasimha Reddi., A.I.R. 1936 Mad. 939. A mere signature in a running account is not evidence of the debt of which there is already evidence in .the account book. It is merely an acknowledgment of the correctness of the account and does not require to be stamped. Vide Sambasiva Rao v. Venkatasuryanarayana murthy ., (1949) 2 M.L.J. 543.