Dave, J.—This is an application in revision by the defendant against the order of the District Judge, Pratapgarh, dated the 7th of December 1953 permitting the plaintiffs unstamped document to be admitted in evidence on payment of penalty.

2. In order to appreciate the point in issue it would be proper to narrate the facts in brief The plaintiffs Tarachand and others brought a money suit against the defendant petitioner on the basis of certain entries in their account-books It was averred by them that on Kati Sud l,Smt. 2008, corresponding to 31st of Oct., 1951, the defendant settled with the plaintiffs his account whereby a balance of Rs. 1734/12/-was found outstanding against him. The defendant, therefore,executed a Khata in their accounts-book for the said amount and promised to pay interest on the said amount at Re. 1 per cent per mensem. Thereafter, on Magh Vad 6 Svt. 2008 corresponding to 20th of November, 1951, the defendant obtained a further loan of Rs 8001/- at the same rate of interest and made an entry to that effect in the same khata in dis own hand. It was prayed that the defendant having failed to pay up the said loan, a decree for Rs.11,045/6 with interest pendente lite and costs be given against him. The defendant traversed the claim and raised several objections, one of them being that both entries on which the suit was founded showed that they were unstamped acknowledgments, and therefore, they could not be admitted in evidence. The trial court has found that since there was promise to pay interest, the entries came within the ambit of agreement and that they are admissible in evidence on payment of stamp duty, as provided in Schedule I Art. 5 of the Stamp Act. together with the penalty, as provided in sec. 35 of the same Act. It is against this order that the defendant has came here in revision

3. Before entering into the arguments advanced by both the parties before us, it would be proper to reproduce here the contents of the document on which the suit is based. It is as follows:—

Nakal Khata Pana 1 ki.

4. Shri Khato 1 Manakshah Dhanjishah Thekadar Nimbahera were ko vyas Pra.anke ek

sukhar 2008 Kartik Sudi 1 Da: Manakshah.

1734/12/-Shri Baki Dena Rs. 1734/12/-I Samvat 2008 Kartik Sudi 1 June Hath Bahi Pane 7 se.Da :Manak Shah Dhanjishah.

8001/-/-Shri Miti Magsar Vad 6 Ta:

20-11-51 nagad rokari Ru. 800 anke Ath hajar ek Moter khari-dwa saru liya Da; Manakshah Dhanjishah.

5. Translated in to English, it would read thus:—

Copy of Khata leaf No. 1.

Shri Khata of Manakshah Dhanjishah Thekedar of Nimbahera interest at I percent Svt.2008 sukhar Sudi 1 Sd/- Manakshah.

1734/12/- payable Rs. 1734/12/-Smt.2008 Kartik Sud 1 from old account-book (juni hath bahi) leaf No.7

Sd/- Manakshah Dhanjishah.

8001/ - /- MitiMagsar Vad6dated 20-11-51 took Rs. 8001/- cash in words Eight thousand and one for purchasing motor.

Sd/- Manakshah Dhanjishah.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that both the entries of Rs 1734/12/-and Rs. 8001/- are mere acknowledgments of a debt written in order to supply evidence thereof and, therefore, they were chargeable with stamp of one anna according to Schedule I Art.l of the Stamp Act. It is admitted by learned counsel that the entire Khata from beginning to end is in the hand writing of his client, that the entry at the top and the entries about the two items of Rs. 1734/12/- and Rs. 8001/- also bear his clients signature. It is however urged that the rate of interest indicated in the entry on the top does not amount to "a stipulation to pay interest and therefore this is not covered by proviso to Art. 1 According to learned counsel, these acknowledgments could come within the ambit of the term "agreement" only if there were an express promise to pay interest. He means to say that a mere mention of the rate of interest is not an express promise or stipulation to pay interest and therefore, the trial courts opinion holding the entries as agreement is incorrect.

7. It would be proper to reproduce here

Click Here to Read the rest of this document