John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a, suit brought by the plaintiff to recover money alleged to be clue by the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of a contract for sale of intoxicating drugs taken by the defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff from the Collector for a term of three years. During the course of the hearing of the suit in the court of first instance the plaintiff stated that he would accept whatever evidence the defendant Chhedi Lal would give on Ganges water and on his honour and that the case might be decided accordingly, Chhedi Lal then took a solemn affirmation and taking Ganges water in his hands swore that nothing was due by him to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff's claim was wholly false. He then said that Rs. 826 has been due by him to the plaintiff, 'but that debt had been set off with plaintiff's consent against a considerably larger sum due by the plaintiff to him in respect of another contract. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's claim as against Chhedi Lal holding that his evidence amounted to an admission that Rs. 826 were due by him to the plaintiff and that the alleged set off had not been proved. On appeal the learned District Judge held that upon the statement of the defendant, Chhedi Lal, the court of first instance was bound to dismiss the claim whether it believed Chhedi Lal's statement or not, provided that Chhedi Lal had taken the oath precisely as prescribed for him. Then the court, commenting upon the words by which Chhedi agreed to be bound, observed: 'But the oath Chhedi Lal took was only on the Ganges water (half Ganga jali) and not also on his honour (wet, imanse) and held that this was not as prescribed. This appears to us to be mere hair-spliting. Chhedi Lal on being sworn necessarily took an obligation upon him to give evidence on his honour and he gave his evidence having Ganges water in his hands. It was not possible for him to take his honour in his hands as well as the 'Ganges water. In taking the oath which he took, he undertook on his honour to swear truthfully and having the Ganges water in his hands it appears to us that he fully satisfied all that his opponent required. He swore that nothing was due inasmuch as the debt had been setoff; and in view of this evidence, which under Section 11 of the Oaths Act the court was bound to accept as conclusive proof, the claim should have been dismissed. We accordingly allow the appeal, and setting aside the decree of the court? below, we dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs including fees, in his court, on the higher scale.