GANGA JAL Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal from the order of remand passed by the Additional District Judge, Hissar, on 5th June, 1968, the sole question that arises for decision is whether a copy of the accounts signed by the Defendant Appellant and delivered to the Plaintiff is hit by Article 1 of schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter called the Act). Facts as are necessary for disposing of the question of law may be stated in a narrow compass.

(2.) THE Plaintiff Respondent had a running account with the Defendant Appellant extending over a long period of time commencing from the year 1961. On 26th June, 1963, the Defendant prepared a copy of the accounts which showed that a sum of Rs. 1130/13/6 was due to the Plaintiff till that date and the Defendant handel over the . -said copy duly .signed by him to the Plaintiff A suit was then filed by the Plaintiff for the recovery of principal amount of Rs. 1130/13/6 with interest claimed at the rate of 6 1/4 per cent per annum The Defendant resisted the suit and pleaded that it was barred by time. It was also urged that the writing dated 26th June, 1963, was an acknowledgment of the debt and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence being unstamped. It was of course admitted by the Defendant that he had an account with the Plaintiff which continued upto 26th June, 1963, but there were no mutual transactions between the parties thereafter. The trial Court framed a preliminary issue to the following effect: -

(3.) AS I have already observed, the circumstances of the present case sufficiently indicate that it was not the intention of the parties that the copy of the accounts which was being supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff should furnish a cause for a future suit and all that was intended was that the parties should know the exact position of accounts as existed on 26th June, 1963. Facts in Ramdayal v. Maji Devdiji, : A I R 1956 Raj 12. are sufficiently similar to those of the present case. In that case, there were some items on the credit side and some on the debit side, and then the balance was struck showing certain amount as due from the debtor to the creditor. It was held that the intention of the parties was to accept the correctness of the account and not that the intention was to supply evidence of the debt. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court constituted by Chagla C.J. and S. T. Desai J. also took a similar view in Jivanlal Chimanlal Mehta v. Pramodchandra Chimanlal Mody, : A I R 1959 Bom 289. It has also been observed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dadi Musali Naidu v. Budda Veeru Naidu,, A I R 1958 A P 88 that a mere signature in a running account is not evidence of the debt of which there is already evidence in the account book and is in fact just an acknowledgment of the correctness of the account not required to be stamped. It is needless to refer to several other authorities and each case, as already stated, will depend on its own facts. I am satisfied that the entry now in dispute was made only as an acknowledgment of the correctness of account and was not intended to supply an evidence of debt so as to fall within the mischief of Article 1, Schedule 1 of the Act. It does not, therefore, require to be stamped.