Mukerji, Ag. C.J.
1. This is a reference to the High Court by the Chief Inspector of Stamps who holds the posision of a Collector under a Government Notification quoted in the reference. Two documents were tendered in evidence before a Judge, Small Cause Court, in a suit for money. They were in the shape of the plaintiff's account books which bore the signature of defendant 1. One of the documents which is described as p. 9c of the record was an extract from the cash book of the plaintiff and in it (the transliteration before us is incorrect.) Parshottam Halwai, defendant 1, wrote and signed with his own hand a statement that he had received the sum of Rupees 225-10-0. Above this signed statement there was an entry in the book to the effect that the money was to carry interest at Re. 1-8-0 per mensem.
2. The other document, the transliteration of which has been marked at 'he being the page of the original record is similar. Parshotam Halwai wrote and signed with his own hand a statement that he had received the sum of Rs. 198. This entry is again in the cash book of the plaintiff and above the signed statement of Purshotam Halwai there appears an entry to the effect that the sum of Rs. 198 is to carry interest at Re. 1-8-0 per cent per mensem. The Chief Inspector of Stamps reports that these two documents amounted to an agreement to pay interest and therefore we should declare accordingly. The reference is under Section 61, Stamp Act.
3. We are of opinion that it is impossible for us to say that the whole of the extract from the account book or the whole of the entry in the account book is a single document for which Parshotam Halwai was responsible. We can treat the signed statement of Parshotam Halwai alone as the document for which he is responsible. The entry in the account book does not profess to be a document executed by Parshotam Halwai. On the other hand, it is quite possible that Parshotam Halwai had no information at all that above his signature there appeared a stipulation that interest was to be paid at Re. 1-8-0 per cent per mensem.
4. In the view which we take of these documents, the case is clearly distinguishable from the case in Mahadeo Kori v. Sheoraj Ram Teli AIR 1919 All 196. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion as to the correctness or otherwise of the case in Mahadeo Kori v. Sheoraj Ram Tell AIR 1919 All 196 and we express no opinion. We hold that the documents are properly stamped being mere acknowledgments of a debt. Let a copy of this order under the seal of the Court be sent to the Chief Inspector of Stamps through the District Judge of Benares for his information.