MANILAL MOTIRAM MEHTA Vs. NATWARLAL GOKALDAS SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 2000, future interest on it and costs of the suit out of the estate of deceased Bhulabhai Gokuldas, to whom various amounts had been advanced by him from time to time between 13-12-1936 and 27-1-1938. Defendants 1 and 2, who are Bhulabhai's brothers, contended that they were separate from him, that none of his property was in their possession and that the suit was time-barred. The suit was filed on 18-11-1940, and the only amount advanced within three years before suit was the last item of Rs. 25 paid to Bhulabhai on 27-1-1938. But the plaintiff alleged in his plaint that on 19-11-1937, Bhulabhai had endorsed an acknowledgment of his liability in his khata in the ledger, and that the bar of limitation was saved thereby under Section 19, Limitation Act. That endorsement being unstamped, both the Courts below held it inadmissible in evidence, as it amounted to an acknowledgment which required a stamp of one anna under Art. 1 of Schedule 1, Stamp Act. The plaintiff was, therefore, given a decree for Rs. 25 and Rs. 4-4-0 as interest thereon with proportionate costs.

(2.) The endorsement in the khata runs as follows:

(3.) The only question in this appeal is whether this amounts to an acknowledgment, requiring to be stamped under Art. 1. That Art. prescribes a stamp of one anna for an acknowledgment of a debt exceeding twenty rupees in amount or value, written or signed by, or on behalf of, a debtor in order to supply evidence of such debt in any book... when such book is left in the creditor's possession, provided that such an acknowledgment does not contain any promise to pay the debt. This Art. would apply to a written or signed acknowledgment of a debt exceeding Rs. 20, left in the possession of the creditor, (1) if it is intended to supply evidence of such debt but (2) does not contain any promise to pay the debt.