JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— We are unable to agree in the view entertained by both the lower Courts as regards the nature of the plaintiff's suit or as to the admissibility of two documents which have been inaccurately described as sarkhats. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover a sum of money alleged to be due to her in respect of moneys borrowed by the defendants through Mahadeo Parshad, who is one of the defendants. In the claim there is a statement that Mahadeo Parshad executed a sarkhat in the name of Muni Ram deceased and his own name promising to pay interest at a stipulated rate, and later on another sarkhat. The Court below treated the suit as based solely on the sarkhats and finding that these sarkhats were not properly stamped and therefore not admissible in evidence, refused to entertain the plaintiff's claim. The learned District Judge says, “Nor do I think it is open to her, (i.e., the plaintiff) to set up her case independently of that sarkhat, for she was bound to prove the terms on which the loan was given by that very document and not by other evidence;” and later on he says:“on a careful consideration of the law point involved in this case and of the authorities cited by the pleaders for both parties in support of their respective contentions, I have come to the conclusion that the suit was not entertainable on the basis of the sarkhat alluded to above, and on these grounds I am not prepared to interfere with the decree below.” Again later on he says, “As, however, the appeal must fail on the law point which has been detailed and discussed above, it is unnecessary to go into greater details of the other points briefly referred to above.” We have examined the alleged sarhhats and we find that they are nothing more nor less than memoranda of money dealings between the plaintiff and the defendants in the handwriting of the defendant Mahadeo Parshad. They do not purport to be in the nature of an acknowledgment of any debt, nor do they contain any promise to repay any debt or any stipulation to pay interest. They, as we have said, are mere memoranda or notes of transactions. Under these circumstances the Court below was wrong in treating them as the sole foundation of the plaintiff's suit. They, as we have said, are mere memoranda or notes of transactions. Under these circumstances the Court below was wrong in treating them as the sole foundation of the plaintiff's suit. The suit is in reality for the recovery of money lent. The case of Udit Upadhiya v. Bhawani Din, 1904] I.L.R., 27 All, 84. is very similar to the present case. In that case this bench had to consider certain documents which in the Courts below were rejected as inadmissible on “the ground that they were not properly stamped. We held that the documents were mere memoranda and not either acknowledgments of debts or promissory notes and therefore did not require a higher stamp than the stamp which was impressed upon them. In that case we may point out that the document was signed by the debtor. In the memoranda in the present case there is no signature by the debtor. We hold that the documents described as sarkhats are merely memoranda of transactions and not the basis of the plaintiff's suit. We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and under the provisions of section 562 of the Code, remand the case to that Court with directions that it be reinstated in the file of pending appeals and be disposed of according to law. Regard will be had to the observations contained herein. As regards the so-called sarkhatsvre see no reason for excluding them from consideration as evidence for what they are worth. The costs here and hitherto will abide the event. The fees in this Court will be on the higher scale.