SURAJ MAL KALU RAM Vs. VISHAN GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, by Suraj Mal plaintiff, arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,890/14/6, principal and interest, on the basis of various amounts advanced by the plaintiff to Vishan Gopal defendant, between 15-12-1944, and 31-5-1947, on which last date the defendant, after going through the account, wrote in his hand at the bottom Rs. 7,883/6/- due (Baki Rahe ). The suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that it is barred by the Statute of limitations. The decree is dated 31-3-1952.

(2.) THE defendant began taking loans from the plaintiff on 15-12-1944. He raised various amounts on various dates up to 31-5-1947, pledging certain shares at different times and taking sometimes all and sometimes part of them, while making repayments in the account. The account was throughout kept by the defendant himself and started with his name written by himself on top of the account. The first balance entry in the account is of 15-1-1945, written in the hand of the defendant showing a balance of Rs. 4700/- as due. The entry is stamped with one anna revenue stamp and is signed by the defendant. There is another entry signed by the defendant of 13-3-1945, but that only relates to the taking back of certain shares pledged by him and to those that remained with the plaintiff. The third entry of balance of account is of 31-5-1946, which shows balance payable as Rs. 9,638/9/ -. The entry is stamped with a revenue stamp of one anna and is signed by the defendant. The last entry, the one that is the subject matter of argument between the parties, is of 31-5-1947, as usual, written by the defendant himself, showing that Rs. 7,833/6/6 were due. The entry is unstamped and not signed by the defendant. It is the amount of this entry, with interest, that is the subject-matter of the claim in this suit.

(3.) THE learned" trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the last entry of balance due is an acknowledgment within the scope of Article 1, Schedule I, of the Stamp Act, and as it is not stamped, so it is inadmissible in evidence, it is common case of the parties that if this acknowledgment is taken out of consideration, the suit from the dates of the advances is obviously time barred.