Wanchoo, C.J.—This is a first appeal by defedant Ramdayal. It came up before a Bench of this Court for hearing in August 1953, and two points were decided by judgment dated 7th August, 1953 (a) See 1954 R.L.W. 157 for previous decision and it was ordered that the appeal fixed for hearingh on the remaining points in due courts. It is therefore not necessary for us to recapitulate the case of the parties. The judgment, dated 7th August, 1953 (a) See 1954 R.L.W. 157 for previous decision may be considered part of this judgment which we are delivering today.

2. Briefly put the case of the plaintiff respondent was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the defendant appellant. The suit was based on a balance of Rs. 3000/- which was said to be due to the plaintiff after settlement of accounts, and a sum of Rs. 7000/- which was further advanced in case. The main defence was that there had been a novation of contract, and therefore the plaintiff could not sue on the basis of the Khata Ex. P.1. This was the only issue which was framed in the trial court. When the case heard by this Court on the previous occasion, a further point was raised, namely, that the suit was premature. The question of novation was decided against the defendant, and though it was held that the suit was premature at the time it was filed, this Court took notice of events which took place after the filling of the suit, and allowed the suit to proceed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant now urges two further points against the decree of the trial court. In the first place, it is contended that the suit is based on a mere acknowledgment, and in view of the decisions of this Court in Kanraj vs. Vijaisingh (1) and Hastimal vs. Shanker Dan (2) it must fail, as a mere acknowledgment cannot be the basis of the suit. In the second place, it is submitted that the acknowledgment in this case not having been stamped as required by Art, 1, schedule I of the Stamp Act is not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel takes the case out of the decision of this Court in Ratanlal vs. Dandas (3) on the ground that the admissibility of the document was disputed in the trial court, but the trial court did not frame any issue about it and did not decide it.

4. The reply of learned counsel for the plaintiff is two-fold In the first place, it is urged that the entry in this case is not an acknowledgment but is merely acceptance of the correctness of the accounts stated and settled between the parties, and therefore there is no question of any stamp being affixed to such an entry. In the alternative, it is urged that even if it is a mere acknowledgment, the recent case of the Supreme Court in Hiralal vs. Badkulal (4) has in effect overruled the Full Bench decision of this Court in Hastimal vs. Shanker Dan(2)

5. Before we consider the question whether the document in this case is a mere acknowledgment or amounts to acceptance of the account stated and settled we might briefly consider the point whether Hiralals case(4) has overruled the Full Bench decision of this Court in Hastimal vs. Shanker Dan(2). It may be mentioned that in Hiralals case (4) the suit was based on balance of an account stated and adjusted, and it was held by the Supreme Court that the Judicial Commissioners view that an unqualified acknowledgment like the one in that suit and the statement of the account under which the entry had been made were sufficient to furnish a cause of action to the plaintiffs. Reference was then made to the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Maniram vs. Seth Rupchand (5) where it was observed that an unconditional acknowledgment implies a promise to pay. Thereafter, two Lahore cases, namely Fateh Mohammed vs. Ganga Singh 6) and Khan Chand Dalaram vs. Daya Ram, Amritlal (7) were approved. The Supreme Court then observed that the defendant in the case accepted the statement of account contained in the plaintiffs account book, and made it his own by signing it, and it thus a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document