V RAMASWAMI AIYAR Vs. GNANAMANI NACHIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is from the judgment of Bakewell, J. dismissing a suit instituted by one Mr. V. Ramaswami Aiyar against the Zemindarni of Sivagiri to recover a sum of Rs. 48,116-12-4. The late Zemindar, whose mother is the defendant, appointed the plaintiff by powers-of-attorney dated the 31st July 1911. and 31st October 1912, his agent to manage his affairs at Madras and elsewhere excepting the Zemindari itself. The plaintiff founds his claim to the extent of Rs. 31,000-12-4 on the basis of accounts settled between him and the late Zemindar on the 14th October 1913 showing this amount to be due to him for remuneration of services rendered by him and for moneys advanced by him to the Zemindar from time to time. Of the balance Rs. 12,741-10-0 consists, he says, of various sums of money which he paid to certain creditors of the Zemindar after his power-of-attorney was cancelled (that was on 15th October 1913) and which have not been recouped to him. He paid those debts as he had incurred liability for them on behalf of the Zemindar. The rest of the amount claimed is on account of interest on these sums at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum which he alleges the Zemindar had agreed to pay.

(2.) It is alleged in defence that when the Court of Wards handed over the Zemindari of Sivagiri to the deceased Zemindar in April 1910 there was a saving of about 8 lakhs of rupees but that about the middle of 1911 he came under the sinister influence of the plaintiff who acquired considerable ascendancy over him, with the result that the Zemindar went on contracting large debts. The powers-of- attorney mentioned in the plaint were procured from the Zemindar by means of fraud and undue influence, not for any lawful or legitimate purpose, but for contracting large and unnecessary debts so that the plaintiff might enrich himself at the expense of the Zemindar. The written statement goes on to state that about September 1913 some friends and relations of the Zemindar finding that he was going from bad to worse under the influence of the plaintiff prevailed upon him to dimiss the plaintiff from his service and to renounce his company. As regards the settlement of account, the deed of release and the power of attorney executed by the Zemindar on the 14th October 1913, it is stated that his signatures to these documents were obtained in suspicious circumstances when the Zemindar had no proper and independent advice. The socalled settlement of account is impeached as false and fraudulent. It is stated that the plaintiff never rendered account to the Zemindar and the latter never looked into any accounts ; that the accounts relied on contain fraudulent omissions and false debits amounting to a considerable sum as set out in the schedule attached to the written statement. The defendant charges that if an account be directed by the Court the plaintiff will be found to be liable to the defendant for not less than a lakh of rupees. The entire accounts commencing from 31st July 1911 to 13th October 1913, that is more than two years and relating to about six lakhs of rupees are contained in 73 pages of a small book marked as Exhibit E. Page 69 shows that the amount to the debit of the Zemindar on the 13th October 1913 was Rs. 3,58,140-12-4 and that to his credit Rs. 1,43,290-0-0 so that the total indebtedness of the Zemindar is stated at Rs. 2,14,850-12-4. At the top of the next page, i.e., 70, is the entry "due to me (i.e., to the plaintiff himself) Rs. 24,850-12-4 ;" then underneath there appear details consisting of four items of Rs. 40,000, 45,000, 25,000 and 80,000 as being due to other persons. At the foot there is a statement in these words : " The balance of the liability is made up of moneys advanced by my agent Mr. V. Ramaswami Aiyar from time to time on my behalf. The above does not include interest due on them." At page 71 it continues : " I have examined the several items of account entered herein in detail and I find them to be correct. I hereby release my agent Mr. V. Ramaswami Aiyar from all claims to account against him by me or any one claiming under or in trust for me and from all claims, actions and demands whatsoever in respect of the said receipts and disbursements. I hereby acknowledge the correctness of every one of the items of expenditure. " Underneath is the signature of the Zemindar. At the next page Rs. 2,14,850-12-4 is carried forward, to which is added " salary from May to September 1913 Rs. 3,750 " and "Interest on the loans advanced by me (i. e., plaintiff) from time to time Rs. 2,400"--totalling Rs. 2,21,000-12-4. Underneath are the Zemindar s initials. The learned trial Judge has rejected these statements as in his opinion they contain an acknowledgment of a debt within the meaning of Article I of Schedule 1 to the Indian Stamp Act and should therefore have been stamped with a oneanna stamp.

(3.) Mr. C.P. Ramaswanai Aiyar, the learned Vakil for the appellant, contends in the first place that this reading of the document is wrong. But there can be no doubt whatsoever that the statement " Due to me " followed by the endorsement " the balance of liability, etc., " set out above does amount to an acknowledgment of a debt. It clearly purports to be more than a mere endorsement vouching simply for the correctness of the entries. We have been referred to a number of decided cases, but in each case one has to look to the nature of the endorsement, as showing what the parties intended. Here the intention of the plaintiff and the Zemindar clearly was that the statement in question should furnish evidence of the latter s liability. The cases which approach nearest to this are Sitaram v. Ramprosad (1902) I.L.R. 29 C. 707. (P.C.) in which the words balance due Rs. 3 and Mulji Lala v. Lingu Makaji (1896) I.L.R. 21 B. 201 where the words "all accounts being made up Rs. 102 in full up to..." were held to amount to an acknowledgment, while in Galstaun v. Hutchison (1912) I.L.R. 39 C. 789 the statement which was held not to amount to an acknowledgment was " I accept as correct."