The judgment established the principles of acknowledgment, admissibility of evidence, effect of payments on limitation, and entitlement to alternative relief.

Puranik, J—The plaintiff sued the defendants for recovery of Rs. 238-15-0 alleging that the defendants had purchased from the plaintiff's shop cloth from time to time from the 24th October 1938. An account was made on the 30th October 1940 showing, after giving credit for repayments made and charging interest as agreed, that Rs. 211-15-0 were due from the defendants. This account was signed by defendant no. 1 in the plaintiff's Byajbahi.

2. The dealings between the parties were admitted by the defendants, but it was pleaded that the suit was barred by time inasmuch as what was signed on the 30th October 1940 amounted to an acknowledgment and as the same was not duly stamped it was inadmissible in evidence and did not save limitation. The Small Cause Court framed the following points for decision :

(1) Whether the signature of Ganpatrao made on the 30th October 1940 on the plaintiff's Byajbahi prevents the claim in suit from being barred by limitation?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest as no statement of accounts were sent to the defendants under the Central Provinces Moneylenders Act?

3. The Court held that the writing dated the 30th October 1940 amounted to an acknowledgment and that as it had not been stamped it was not admissible in evidence. On point no. 2 it held that interest could not be disallowed. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed as barred by time. Against this decision the plaintiff has come up in appeal.

4. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff's suit was within time and that its dismissal was wrong. The document relied on by the plaintiff is as under :

Byajbahi (Interest Account Book).

Samvat 1997-98 (year 1940-41 A.D.).

Interest calculated : Moreshwar Ganpatrao Shimpi of the village.

Credit

Debit

Rs. 25 Miti Magsar sudi 2 (dated the 12th December 1939).

2,5221/2. Rs. 271-2-9 Miti Kati sudi, Sarnvat 96 (dated the 12th November 1939).

Rs. 25 Miti Poh badi 15 (dated the 9th January 1940).

26 Rs. 27 (1 month and 1 day).

Rs. 25 Miti Fagan badi 8 (dated the 1st March 1940).

49 Rs. 25 (2 months and 1 day). 931/2 Rs. 25 (31/2 months and 7 days).

Rs. 196-2-9 Balance due Miti Kati sudi 1 (Samvat 97 (dated the 31st October 1 940).).

2,354 Rs. 196-2-9 (12 months). 2,5221/2

Rs. 211-15-0 balance due. Miti Kati sudi 1 (Sarnvat) 97, (dated the 31st October 1940).

2,5221/2 balance due. Ankh muddat 2.5221/2.

Rs. 196-2-9 Principal amount.

Rs. 15-12-3 Interest ankhs, i.e., (figures). 2522, rate 10 annas.

Rs. 211-15-0

Ganpatrao.

Rs. 211-15-0

5. This is dated the 30th October 1940. This is stated to be an acknowledgment for the purpose of section 19 of the Limitation Act but not an acknowledgment for the purpose of Schedule I, Article 1, of the Stamp Act. To be an acknowledgment for the purpose of Schedule I, Article 1, it is argued before me, there should be an acknowledgment of a debt exceeding twenty rupees in amount or value, written or signed by, or on behalf of, a debtor in order to supply evidence of such debt in any book (other than a banker's passbook) or on a separate piece of paper when such book or paper is left in the creditor's possession.

6. This document on the very face of it does not disclose that this is written or signed by the debtor in order to supply evidence of such debt, and it is argued that unless that was the dominant intent Schedule I, Article 1, of the Stamp Act has no application. Chandick v. Ananta Lal Damani, 1923 46 ILR(Mad) 948, which is followed in Tilakchand Ratanlal v. Ramkisan, 1938 AIR(Nag) 51, is relied on. In that case it was laid down that a document is not an acknowledgment within the terms of Article 1 of Schedule I, unless it is given with the dominant intent to supply evidence of the debt. It further stated that the Court has to apply its mind to the question, looking at the document and the surrounding circumstances, what was the intention with which it was given. In this particular case the plaintiff's agent has gone into the witness-box and stated that the d