Shivdayal, J.-

1. This is defendants' appeal from a decree for Rs. 25,737.71 P. and interest Pendente-lite and future till realisation at 4% per annum.

2. Firm Mangturam Jhuthalal advanced loans from time to time to the defendants' firm. On February 28, 1962, the defendants signed an entry in the books of account of the creditor Firm. The suit loan was allotted to plaintiff Ghasilal when there was a partition of the Joint Hindu family Firm Mangturam Jhuthalal. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 25,737.71 P. as principal, Rs. 3925.29 P. as interest, and Rs. 7.60 P. as notice costs; total Rs. 29,670.60 P. The defendants resisted the suit on several grounds; two of them only need be mentioned. It was contended that the entry dated February 28, 1962, in the plaintiff's books of account could not be the basis of the suit as it was a mere acknowledgement. Secondly, the plaintiff being a money lender, the defendants were entitled to the benefit of the Money Lenders Act.

3. The trial Court held that the suit was maintainable but the plaintiff, being a money lender within the meaning of the Act, was not entitled to any interest because he did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act. However, the plaintiff was allowed proportionate costs.

4. In this appeal Shri Naokar has raised three contentions; (i) that the entry dated February 28, 1962 could not be basis of the suit (ii); the Court was bound to reopen the accounts of 12 years preceding the date of the suit; and (iii) costs could not have been allowed to the plaintiff as he had not complied with the provisions of the Money Lenders Act.

5. The entries (Ex. P. 1) which the plaintiff filed in the trial Court are these :-

(1) The first entry is of Phalgun Badi 30, Samvat 2015, (corresponding to March 9, 1959). Rs. 19,078-15-6 was the balance outstanding on Kartik Sudi 2, Samvat 2015 (March 18, 1958). To this was added Rs. 3,162 0-6 as interest at 8 annas per cent per month. Rs.102/- was relinquished. The debtors agreed to pay Rs. 22 241/- in these words:-

22241½

ckdh ysuk jgs Qkxqu lnh 30@2015 esa vadu ckbZl gtkj nks lkS bdrkyhl ckdh ysuk jgs lwn Åij ds eqrkfcd :Œ 22]241½ Qkxqu lqnh 30A n% ¼?ku’;kenkl½ n% enuyky 22]241½ :Œ nsuk jgsA

(2) The other entry is dated February 28, 1962, in which outsf1nding balance is shown as Rs. 21,741,71 P. and interest Rs 3.996/- from Phalgun Badi 30, Samvat 2015 (corresponding to March 9, 1959) is added. The defendants signed the following statements:-

^^24737½ 71 ckdh ysuk jgs Qkxqu lqnh -9 la- 2018 rkŒ 28 Qjojh lu~ 1962 esa C;kt nj AA½ egkckj ls vadu iphl gtkj lkr lkS lSarhl :Œ bdRrj u;s iSls-

fVdV& 2- 10&10 u;s iSls ds fVdV ij nLr[kr % ?ku’;kenkl rkŒ 28&2&62 24737½71 ckdh nsuk jgsA fglkc le>dj fVdV 2 u;s 10&10 iSls dks

nŒ % enuyky 24737½71

fVdV 2 u;s 10&10 iSls ds

In both these entries there are not only words "Baqi lene Rahe" and" Baki dene Rahe", but also an agreement to pay interest at a specified rate. Thus both these transactions were not mere acknowledgements of liability within the meaning of section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, but furnished by themselves a right within the meaning of section 25 (3) of the Contract Act to recover the amount. Therefore, each gave rise to a fresh cause of action to the plaintiff for maintaining the suit. [See Tulsiram Shrikisan Marwadi Vs. Zaboo Bhima Shonkar, 35 MPLC 445=ILR 1948 Nag. 387=AIR 1949 Nag. 229 and Hiralal and others Vs. Badkulal and others, AIR 1953 SC 225. The first contention is. therefore, rejected.

6. Adverting to Shri Naoker's second contention, we shall refer to the relevant provisions of the Money Lenders Act, 1934, which came into force on January 1, 1959, when it was extended to the whole of Madhya Pradesh by Act No. 38/1958. Under section 2 Clauses (vi) and (vi) 'interest' and 'loan' are defined thus:-

"(vi) "Interest" included the return to be made over and above what was actually lent whether the same is charged or sought to be recovered specifically by way of interest or otherwise