Suit can be founded on unconditional acknowledgment because it implies a promise to pay.

Dave, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiffs whose money suit was decreed by the trial court, viz. , Civil Judge, Sojat, but dismissed by the District Judge, Pali, on the defendants appeal.

( 2 ) THE suit was based on a Khata-entry Ex. 1 appearing in the plaintiffs account books. The said entry was in the following language:--[original in Marwadi Omitted -- Ed. Rendered in English, it would read as follows:--

"account of Shah Kunanmalji Lalchandji of Marwar Junction of the year s. 2009. 6022/-Balance to be received as per account given above. Rs. 6022/-in figures Rupees six thousand and twenty-two only. Kati sudi 1 Smt. 2009. Signed Bhandari Jeevraj. Balance struck in the presence of Kunanmal lalchand. Signed Lalchand For Kunanmal lalchand. Rs. 6022/- in figures Rupees six thousand and twenty-two are to be paid. Signed Misrimal Kunanmal Signed Premraj. Witness Sewag Pukhraj at Ranawas at the instance of mishri Mal of Marwar Junction in his presence. "

The defendants contested the suit on several grounds, one of them being that the entry Ex. 1 was merely an acknowledgment and that it could not be made the basis of the suit. The trial Court repelled this contention, dismissed other objections and passed a decree for Rs. 6215/- with costs and future interest. On the defendants appeal, the District Judge came to the conclusion that the entry on which the suit was founded was nothing more than a mere acknowledgment and as such, the suit could not be based thereon. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal, set aside the trial Courts decree and dismissed the suit with costs. He relied on the decisions of this Court in Hastimal v. Shankerdan, ILR (1951) 1 raj 297= (AIR 1952 Raj 7 (FB)), and Ramdayal v. Maji Deodiji of Riyan, ILR (1955)5 Raj 85= (AIR 1956 Raj 12 ). Aggrieved by that judgment and decree dated 14-558, the plaintiffs filed a second appeal which came before a learned single Judge of this Court. It was argued before him that the Full Bench decision of this Court in ilr (1951) 1 Raj 297 = (AIR 1952 Raj 7) (FB) (supra) must be taken to be overruled by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hiralal v. Badkulal, AIR 1953 SC 225. He, therefore, considered it proper that the case be referred to a Division Bench. When the case went to the Division Bench, it was observed by the learned Judges that in ILR (1955) 5 Raj 85 = (AIR 1956 Raj 12) (supra), it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the Full Bench decision in Hastimals case, ILR (1951) 1 Raj 297 = (AIR 1952 Raj 7 FB) (supra) was not overruled by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hiralals case (supra) and that if that view required re-consideration, the case should be referred to a Full Bench, It is in these circumstances that the present case has come before us,

( 3 ) THE short question which arises for our determination is, whether the suit could be founded on the basis of the document Ex. 1.

( 4 ) NOW, the bare perusal of the document Ex. 1 would show that although it was noted therein that the balance of Rs. 6022/- was struck "on the basis of account noted above", it is common ground between the parties that the previous account did not appear on the lead on which Ex. 1 was executed. The words as per account given above" appearing in Ex. 1 are, therefore, misleading. There was no account stated above the said entry. If the previous account were stated on the same leaf or this entry were made in continuation of an account appearing on the preceding page, perhaps it might have been possible for the plaintiffs to argue that it was an "account stated". The document Ex. 1 does not disclose what kind of transaction or transactions took place between the parties and how the figure of Rs. 6022/was arrived at. It is settled law that a suit can be based on "account stated" and this view has been taken by this Court also in Ramdayals case, ILR (1955) 5 Raj 85= (AIR 1956 Raj 12) (supra ). The term "account stated", ho