Mere taking over of assets and liabilities in a family settlement does not amount to acknowledgment of liability or a promise to pay, and entries in books of account or balance sheets alone are insufficient to prove a debt without other evidence.

JUDGMENT:- This first appeal of the defendants is against the judgment and decree of the Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 29,463.92.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. In course of business the plaintiff company used to lend money to the tea estates, namely, Nepaphoo Tea Estate and Rangmala Tea Estate. These two tea estates were owned by a Hindu Undivided Family (H.U.F.) governed by Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. Late Suresh Chandra Bagchi, Late Dinesh Chandra Bagchi and defendants 1 to 8, who were heirs of late Bipin Chandra Bagchi, were members of the said H.U.F. The said H.U.F. also held shares of the plaintiff company and another private limited company. As some disputes arose between the members of the family, a partition suit was filed. The said suit was later compromised and a compromise decree was passed on 7-6-65. In terms of the compromise, Nepaphoo tea estate including Rangmala tea estate (hereinafter referred to as the Tea Estate) fell into the share of the defendants who took over the same with all the assets and liabilities. As certain sums of money which had been borrowed by the aforesaid Tea Estate from the plaintiff company remained outstanding, a suit was filed by the plaintiff company against the defendants for recovery of the said amount. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground, inter alia, that it was barred by limitation. The defendants denied the transactions in question and contended in their written statement that the accounts of the plaintiff company were fabricated and manufactured for the purpose of the suit. The alleged transactions during the years 1963 and 1964 were also categorically denied. The suit was tried by the Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh. The plaintiff examined one Shyamal Chandra Bagchi (P.W.1) who produced the copies of the audit reports for the years 1963 and 1964 which showed the amount due from the Tea Estate. In cross-examination it was admitted by P.W.1 that the debt belonged to the period from 1957 to 1962. Another witness examined by the plaintiff was, Sachindra Kumar Ganguli (P.W.2) who was a part-time accountant of the plaintiff company. He had been appointed in the year 1960. He produced the accounts of the company for the years 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964 and exhibited the entries therein showing the amount outstanding against the Tea Estate. From the accounts shown it appeared that the plaintiff company advanced money to the Tea Estate of the defendants from time to time. Repayments were also made by the Tea Estate. From the entries in the books of the account produced before the court it appears that a sum of Rs. 29,433.92 was due from the Tea Estate of the defendants to the plaintiff company at the end of the calendar year 1962. No repayment whatsoever was made against the aforesaid amount of loan by the defendants since then. The accounts of the years 1963 and 1964 showed a further loan of Rs. 20/- and Rs. 10/respectively to the Tea Estate. The suit was decreed by the learned Assistant District Judge. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, it was held that by taking over the tea estates with all the assets and liability in pursuance of the compromise, the defendants acknowledged the amount due from the Tea Estate to the plaintiff company, and in that view of the matter the suit was not barred by limitation. So far as the amount claimed is concerned, the learned trial court relied on the entries in the accounts of the plaintiff and the balance sheets and on that basis held that the defendants were liable to pay the balance outstanding therein. In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit was decreed against the defendants. The defendants have come in appeal before this court against the said judgment and decree.

3. Mr. D. P. Chaliha, the learned counsel for t