The dominant intention of the parties determines the nature of the instrument, in the consideration of the question whether the document requires to be stamped under Article 1, Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act or whether it can be used only as an acknowledgment for the purpose of Section 19 of the Limitation Act.

( 1 ) THE point posed by this revision petition is whether certain documents constitute acknowledgments within the purview of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act or acknowledgments attracted by Article 1 of Schedule 1 of the Hyderabad Stamp Act (IV of 1331-F.) as amended by Regulation XIV of 1359-F.

( 2 ) THE facts leading up to this litigation may be shortly stated. The respondent executed two promissory notes on 23-1-1949 and 10-2-1949 for Rs. 2,000/. and Rs. 3,000/- respectively in favour of the petitioner-firm. Subsequently, he signed in the account books of the petitioner under certain entries containing the account between the parties on four occasions viz. , on 4-11-1951, 30-10-1952, 27-10-1954 and 3-10-1956. A suit was laid by the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,596-70 np. in the Court of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court. The four acknowledgments referred to above were relied upon by the petitioner-plaintiff as saving limitation.

( 3 ) ONE of the answers of the respondent-defendant to the suit was that it was barred by limitation as It was brought more than ten years after the execution of the two promissory notes.

( 4 ) TO get over this difficulty, the plaintiff called in aid the acknowledgments referred to above.

( 5 ) THE trial Court accepted the defence of the defendant-respondent that these acknowledgments, which were insufficiently stamped -- bearing a stamp of one anna on each were of no avail to the plaintiff to save limitation. The learned Judge thought that they were meant to supply evidence of the debt within the mischief of Article 1, Schedule 1 of the Hyderabad Stamp Act and, therefore, they could not be admitted in evidence for the reason that they were insufficiently stamped. In that view, he excluded these documents from evidence. It Is this opinion of the trial Court that is impugned before us in this revision.

( 6 ) IT is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the acknowledgments in question did not answer the description of documents within the contemplation of Article 1, Schedule 1, of the Hyderabad Stamp Act in which case alone Section 33 of that Act would be attracted and that the learned Judge was in error in thinking that Article 1, Schedule 1, was a bar to the admissibility of these documents.

( 7 ) ON the other hand, it is strenuously contended for the respondent that the paramount intention of the parties was that these acknowledgments should serve as evidence of debt and, consequently, it was hit at by Section 33 read with Article 1, Schedule 1 of the Hyderabad Stamp Act.

( 8 ) SINCE the question to be answered by us primarily turns upon the language of Article 1, Schedule 1, it is convenient first to extract that Article here. Description of Instrument. Proper Stamp-duty. 1. 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 (other than a bankers pass book) or on a separate piece of paper, when such book or paper is left in the creditors possession: Provided that such acknowledgment does not contain any promise to pay the debt or any stipulation to pay interest or to deliver any goods or other property. . . . One and half annas.

( 9 ) INDISPUTABLY the documents in question relate to indebtedness of more than Rs. 20. 00 since the debts acknowledged to be due amount to more than Rs. 5,000. 00. It is also not disputed that the first three of the documents did not bear sufficient stamps in that it was only a one-anna revenue stamp that was affixed on each of them. The effect of Insufficiently stamping a document is stated in Section33 of the Hyderabad Stamp Act, which says:" (1) No person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, shall admit in evidence an Instrument on which duty is payable and no such person or Government servant shall act upon, register or authenticate it unless it is duly stamped: