H.R. Sodhi, J. - (1.) IN this second appeal from the order of remand passed by the Additional District Judge, Hissar, on 5th June, 1968, the sole question that arises for decision is whether a copy of the accounts signed by the Defendant Appellant and delivered to the Plaintiff is hit by Article 1 of schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter called the Act). Facts as are necessary for disposing of the question of law may be stated in a narrow compass.
(2.) THE Plaintiff Respondent had a running account with the Defendant Appellant extending over a long period of time commencing from the year 1961. On 26th June, 1963, the Defendant prepared a copy of the accounts which showed that a sum of Rs. 1130/13/6 was due to the Plaintiff till that date and the Defendant handel over the . -said copy duly .signed by him to the Plaintiff A suit was then filed by the Plaintiff for the recovery of principal amount of Rs. 1130/13/6 with interest claimed at the rate of 6 1/4 per cent per annum The Defendant resisted the suit and pleaded that it was barred by time. It was also urged that the writing dated 26th June, 1963, was an acknowledgment of the debt and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence being unstamped. It was of course admitted by the Defendant that he had an account with the Plaintiff which continued upto 26th June, 1963, but there were no mutual transactions between the parties thereafter. The trial Court framed a preliminary issue to the following effect: - Whether the Bahi entry is admissible, if not, its effect ? It was held by the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Sirsa, that the writing dated 26th June, 1963, amounted to acknowledgment of debt and being unstamped was inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Act. The suit of the Plaintiff was accordingly dismissed. The Plaintiff preferred an appeal which was heard by the Additional District Judge, Hissar, who held that the copy of the accounts which contained entries of mutual dealings between the parties for about two and a half years and according to which a sum of Rs. 1350/ - was shown to have been paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and thereafter a balance of Rs 1130/13/6 was struck, could not be treated as having been executed for creating an evidence of debt. I have seen the entries myself On the debit side, there are entries showing foodgrains and other stuff received by the Defendant from time to time, whereas on the credit side, the amounts advanced by him to the Plaintiff are shown At the close of the account on the debit side, the following words appear: - Baqi raha dena 26th June, 1963 (the balance of amount payable) Rs 1130/13/6. On the credit side, there appear the following words.: - Rokari Jamma -26th June, 1963 Rs. 1350/ -. Article 1 of Schedule I of the Act, may be quoted here in extenso for facility of reference: - 1.   Acknowledgment of a debt exceeding twenty rupees in amount or value, written or sighed by, or on behalf of,  a debtor in order to supply evidence of such debt in any book (other than a banker's pass -book) or on a separate piece of paper when such book or paper is left in the creditor's  possession : provided that such acknowledgment does not contain any promise to pay the debt or any stipulation to pay interest or to deliver any goods or other property." One anna (Assam Twenty nayapaise Prior to 1st April, 19G3 10 n.P.) surrounding circumstances.lt is to be seen whether the document is being given to supply evidence of the debt or merely to keep the other side informed as to what the state of accounts between the parties is so that a dispute does not arise about the correctness of the accounts. When ever there is a certain amount due and it is so stated in the accounts supplied to the other party, there is, to a certain extent, an acknow ledgment of liability but it will not in every case come within the mischief of Article 1, Schedule 1 of the Act. What is to be gathered is the paramount or the dominant intention and it has to be ascertained whether the striking of balance was to supply evidence of a debt. From the mere fact that an entry is couched in the words "Baqi raha dena" (the balance amount payable), it cannot be inferred that it was so made with an intention to supply evidence of the debt. No intending circumstances have been painted out to me by the learned counsel for the Appellant from which such an intention could be inferred. There are several rulings dealing with entries of almost similar nature made in different circumstances and my attention has been invited to them by the learned Counsel for the parties. A reference has also been made by the learned District Judge to a few of them, A full Bench of Lahore High Court in Firm Shiv Ram Punnun Ram v. Faiz,, AIR (1942) Lah GO, considered the question as to whether an entry in the books of accounts of the creditor and thumb marked by the debtor amounted to an agreement' to pay so as to make it a bond chargeable with ad valorem stamp duty under the Act or it was just an acknowledgment. The entry was in the following words Baqi rahe lene lekha karke. It was held that the said entry did not amount to a bond and was just an acknowledgment. A Division Bench of this Court in Suraj Mal Kalu Ram v. Vishan Gopal, : AIR 1958 P&H. 216, dealt with an entry where after going through the accounts the Defendant wrote in his hand at the bottom Rs. 7 83/6/, due (Baqi rahe). The trial Court came to the conclusion that this entry amounted to an acknowledgment within the scope of Article 1, Schedule 1, of the Act and not being stamped was inadmissible in evidence. Mehar Singh J. as my Lord the Chief Justice then was, in delivering the judgment of the Court observed that there was other evidence available in addition to the entry which led to the inference that the acknowledgment in question was not intended by the debtor to supply evidence of the debt. Article 1, Schedule, 1 of the Act was, therefore, held not to be applicable. There being thus no acknowledgment of liability, the suit was dismissed as barred by time. In other words, the entry by itself was not considered sufficient to come to a conclusion that it amounted to an evidence of debt. The entry in the instant case is also couched in almost similar language. In M. N., Aswathiak Setty v. V.A. Setty,, A I R 1962 Mys 80, after taking accounts of the partnership, a balance was struck and the entry showed that a certain amount was due in the account of the Defendant which entry was signed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff, according to the findings in that case, had no idea that he should take acknowledgment from the Defendant to base a cause of action thereon in a future suit. In these circumstance, it was held that a debtor's admission taken in writing in order that he may not subsequently dispute the correctness of accounts does not amount to an acknowledgment of liability intended to supply evidence of debt, so as to require a stamp under Schedule 1, Article 1.
(3.) AS I have already observed, the circumstances of the present case sufficiently indicate that it was not the intention of the parties that the copy of the accounts which was being supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff should furnish a cause for a future suit and all that was intended was that the parties should know the exact position of accounts as existed on 26th June, 1963. Facts in Ramdayal v. Maji Devdiji, : A I R 1956 Raj 12. are sufficiently similar to those of the present case. In that case, there were some items on the credit side and some on the debit side, and then the balance was struck showing certain amount as due from the debtor to the creditor. It was held that the intention of the parties was to accept the correctness of the account and not that the intention was to supply evidence of the debt. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court constituted by Chagla C.J. and S. T. Desai J. also took a similar view in Jivanlal Chimanlal Mehta v. Pramodchandra Chimanlal Mody, : A I R 1959 Bom 289. It has also been observed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dadi Musali Naidu v. Budda Veeru Naidu,, A I R 1958 A P 88 that a mere signature in a running account is not evidence of the debt of which there is already evidence in the account book and is in fact just an acknowledgment of the correctness of the account not required to be stamped. It is needless to refer to several other authorities and each case, as already stated, will depend on its own facts. I am satisfied that the entry now in dispute was made only as an acknowledgment of the correctness of account and was not intended to supply an evidence of debt so as to fall within the mischief of Article 1, Schedule 1 of the Act. It does not, therefore, require to be stamped.;