This appeal is from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Lower Assam Districts, dated 7th January, 1952, by which plaintiff's suit for reco­very of a sum of Rs. 71,980 was decreed. Defendant has appealed.

(2) The case of Mirzamall Agarwalla, manag­ing-proprietor of Messrs. Dasuram Mirzamal, as dis­closed in the plaint was that Santiranjan Das Gupta, defendant was doing business in Nowgong town and had also a rice mill at Hojai in the District of Now­gong. He was having cash and goods from plaintiffs from time to time. The account was settled on 18th December, 1946. The defendant's liability by that date had reached Rs. 61,000. This sum included some interest. He acknowledged this liability and executed a writing called Mabalakbandi in plaintiff's Khata at Gauhati in his own hand.

A sum of Rs. 10,980 was added to the principal amount on account of interest calculated at the rate of six per cent, per annum as agreed to by the de­fendant by his writing. A copy of the plaintiff's Khata showing defendant's liability as also the Maba­lakbandi executed thereunder was filed with the plaint. It was averred that defendant had failed to pay the amount due despite repeated demands.

(3) Defendant asked for time twice to put in his written statement. On 20th January, 1950, he applied for permission to examine plaintiff's accounts. Plaintiff was directed to produce the accounts on 25th January. On 25th January, 1950, it was ordered that defendant was not entitled to examine any other books of account except the document relied on by the plaintiff in his plaint, a copy of which had been filed.

(4) The suit was resisted. Several legal pleas were raised. It was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable, the plaintiff had no right to sue the defendant, there was no cause of action for the suit, the Gauhati Court had no jurisdiction and the suit was barred by time. On facts the allegation that the defendant had taken cash and goods from the plain­tiff from time to time and on a settlement of ac­counts a sum of Rs. 61,000 was found due from him which he acknowledged as due by his writing, was denied.

It was alleged that the Mabalakbandi was not executed at Gauhati. It had been written at Hojai in the District of Nowgong. At the time it was writ­ten there were no entries of accounts at the top

portion of the page on which the Mabalakbandi was written . That portion was blank when the defendant wrote Ext. 2 (1) (Malakbandi). The correctness of the entries which appeared at the top of Ext. 2 (1) was also denied and it was pleaded that the writing of Ext. 2 (1) was not intended to fasten liability on the defendant.

It was written to show that the amount of Rs. 61,000 was due to the defendant from the plain­tiff as the writing states in express terms. Liability to the plaintiff was denied and it was claimed that a very large amount was due to the defendant from plaintiff. Allegations in the plaint about demands by the plaintiff were also repudiated. The issues framed were as follows:-

1. Whether the suit is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court?

2. Whether the plaintiff is competent to sue?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the plaintiff's Khata entries are not correct or regularly maintained?

5. Whether defendant executed the Mabalak­bandi as alleged?

6. Whether the defendant owed the plaintiff to the extent of the claim?

7. What relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to?

(5) The claim has been founded on a document which has two parts. These parts have been marked Exts. 2 and 2 (1). Ext. 2 contains the account of Santiranjan Das Gupta of Nowgong for Sambat 2002. The whole of this document appears on page 5 of the supplementary Paper Book. In the account of Santiranjan Das Gupta a sum of Rs. 58,198-8-9 was brought forward from the previous year. There were six more debit entries in this account.

On 18th December, 1946, a sum of Rs. 961-7-3 was debited on account of interest according to the admission of the defe