JUDGMENT - CHAGLA, C. J.:

This appeal arises two questions, one which is very simple to decide and the other of some importance. The Appellant was adjudicated insolvent on a petition presented on the 28th of November, 1957 by the Respondent basing the Petition on a debt of Rs. 3251.75 np and urging as the ground of in solvency that the property of the Appellant had been sold in execution of a decree; and the first question that was considered by the learned Judge below was whether there was a subsisting debt on which the Petition could be founded and the question that arose for consideration was whether a certain document constituted an acknowledgment within the meaning of the Limitation Act or an acknowledgment within the meaning of Art. 1 of Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act. On the decision of this question depended whether there was a subsisting debt or not. Now, the document is a statement of account and it sets out the balance due to one Pramodchandra Chimanlal Mody, the Respondent, from the firm of C. Jivanlal and Co. in which the Appellant was a partner There was an account of the Respondent in the books of the firm and the statement corresponds to the balance that appeared to the credit of the Respondent in the books of the firm. What is urged by the Appellant is that inasmuch as this document was not stamped, it is inadmissible in evidence and if the docu ment is ruled out, the debt due by the firm of C. Jivanlal and Co. in which the Appellant was a partner, is barred by limitation. Now, the question as to whether the document falls witnin Art. 1 of Sch. 1 of the Stamp Act depends, as the article) itself says, on the decision whether the document was given in order to supply evidence of a debt, and numerous authorities, which, it is not necessary to review, have clearly laid down that that must be the paramount intention of the person giving the document and the question that the Court has to ask looking at the document and looking at the surrounding circumstances is whether the document is given in order to supply a statement of account or whether the document is given in order to supply evidence of a debt. The learned Judge has held on consideration of all the facts that this particular document does not fall within Art. 1 of Sch. 1. No authority can help to construe this particular document. Each decision must turn on the facts of its own case; and we have here a very important circumstance and that circum stance is that accounts of the farm of C. Jivanlal and Co., as admitted by the appellant himself, were made up every year after Diwali and the Appellant says :

"in due course the account of moneys brought in by the said Chimanlal Tricumlal Mody, a partner of the firm in the name of his son pramodchandra Chimanlal Mody was made up after Asho, Vadya 30th Sanwat year 2011 i.e. 14th of November, 1955, and Khata acknowledgment was sent to him showing the amount due."

So, the case of the Appellant himself is that ac counts of the firm were made up from time to time, that one of the partners, who is the father of the Respondent, brought in money in the name of his son, the Respondent, and the account of moneys brought in by the father of the Respondent was made up at the end of every year and a statement supplied to the Respondent. Under these circum stances, it is difficult to take the view that the document, which we are considering, constitutes an acknowledgment within the meaning of the Stamp Act and we agree with the learned Judge that this is an acknowledgment within the meaning of the Limitation Act, that limitation is saved by this document and the Petition was well founded to the ex tent that it relied on this document.

(2) The second question is whether the debtor committed an act of insolvency and the act of in solvency relied upon is the one set out in S. 9 (1) (e) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act:

"If any of his property has been sold or attached for a period of not less than twenty-one days in execution of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document