RAMCHANDRA BACHHARAJ MAHESHRI Vs. MUKA GUJAN MAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The applicant brought a suit for money due on account by the non-applicant, but his suit was dismissed as barred by time. The reason for the dismissal was that the unstamped entry, or acknowledgment, in the account book, on which reliance was placed to save limitation, was held to be inadmissible in evidence under the provisions of Section 35, Stamp Act, and that consequently there being no acknowledgment to save limitation, the suit was time-barred. The applicant has now applied for revision of this finding, claiming that the entry, or acknowledgment, in the account book should have been admitted in evidence, if necessary, upon payment of the required duty and penalty.

(2.) THE acknowledgment is on the first page of the extracts of accounts filed as Ex. P-2 and may be, translated as follows: Rs. 169-0-0 Found due this day on making accounts of old khata balance and promissory note, dated 28th August 1929.

(3.) THE applicant has strenuously contended that an unconditional acknowledgment always implies a promise to pay, and in support of this contention he cited the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Maniram.v. Seth Rupchand (1906) 2 NLR 130. No doubt it has been held therein that an unconditional acknowledgment always implies a promise to pay and would therefore save limitation, but it has to be noted that in that case there was no question of stamp duty, and the acknowledgment was made by the respondent in probate proceedings in reply to an objection filed by the other side. The statement in the probate proceedings clearly admitted the indebtedness and contained the following sentence: For the last five years he (the respondent) had open and current accounts with the deceased.