RATAN SINGH Vs. PIRBHU DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this case sued for recovery of money due or accounts. The sum due from the defendants to the plaintiff was the sum of Rs. 2,341. That this sum was due am owing by the defendant to the plaintiff is not disputed. But the defendant relied upon the statute of limitation and alleged that the last debited entry in the account was dated 22 February, 1923 and the account was settled on 27 of the same month, and that therefore time began to run from the latter date. The suit was brought on 18 January 1927, so limitation would have expired except for an unconditional acknowledgment by the defendant intervening. The plaintiff alleged that there was such an acknowledgment which was dated 25 June 1924, and if the plaintiff's contention on this point is correct, the suit of course would be within time. The learned Judge in the Court below has come to the conclusion that this is an acknowledgment which saves limitation. He has repelled the contention of the defendant that the document relied on was in reality a promissory note, that it was not stamped properly and therefore was inadmissible in evidence.

(2.) It has been contended by the appellant here that the proper construction of the document would make it a promissory note and that therefore it cannot be relied upon by the plaintiff as an acknowledgment, as it is not. properly stamped There are several difficulties in the way of the appellant. The document has, in fact, been admitted in the lower appellate Court, and therefore Section 36, Stamp Act applies, which reads as follows: Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such an admission shall not, except as provided in Section 61, be called in question at any stage in the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been properly stamped.

(3.) There can be no, doubt therefore that the appellant's argument on this point is without force. The wording of the section is perfectly clear and is not open to any doubt.