G. MEHROTRA C.J.- This is plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5.907/-. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants took money from time to time from the plaintiff and on the 6th March 1955 the accounts were examined and it was found that "Rs. 5,000/- was due from the defendants to the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 for and on behalf of the defendant No. 1 gave a writing in which he acknowledged the sum of Rs. 5000/- to be due from the defendants to the plaintiff on settlement of their accounts with the plaintiff. On the basis of this a suit has been filed. (2) The written statement filed by the defendants is very vague and it took the general objection that the suit is not maintainable. There was mo specific point taken that the earlier advances made were beyond the period of limitation. In paragraph 10 of the written statement it is stated as follows: "The defendant No. 2 is a businessman of Gauhati, carrying on business with and in the company of his other coparaceners under the name and style of Haribux Laxmi Narayan at Gauhati and in course of their business opened Khata account with one business concern Ganesh Das Sreeram at Gauhati as far back as from 2001 Bikram Sambat in November 1944 and the said amount stands closed and finalised between Ganesh Das Sreeram of Gauhati and the defendants. The defendant No. 2 induced by and at the instance of Ganesh Das Sreeram gave at Gauhati a chit (in the form of letter) as token and in proof of adjustment of the account between the parties aforesaid, The chit aforesaid, now it appears, stands interpolated and such interpolations crept in without the knowledge of the defendants. The defendant No. 2 did never execute any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The aforesaid Khata account was opened at Gauhati. No transaction nor any writing was ever made at Shillong. Moreover, the settlement of account was also not free from coercion and undue influence exercised and put by Ganesh Das Sreeram on the defendant No. 2.” (3) As I have said the defendants seem to have taken two alternative pleas. The aforesaid Khata account was opened at Gauhati. No transaction nor any writing was ever made at Shillong. Moreover, the settlement of account was also not free from coercion and undue influence exercised and put by Ganesh Das Sreeram on the defendant No. 2.” (3) As I have said the defendants seem to have taken two alternative pleas. Although they admit that there was a settlement of accounts and the accounts were finally closed, still they contend that only a chit was given by defendants acknowledging the final settlement of the account but the said interpolations were made in that chit and further they also attack the settlement of accounts as being arrived at under coercion and undue influence. There is no evidence produced by defendants to show that the settlement was done under coercion or undue influence. No facts are set out in the written statement from which the defendants want to infer that there was any coercion or undue influence. The defendants themselves have not come into the witness box, nor have produced any evidence to show that the settlement was made on coercion and undue influence. The only point on which the Court below has dismissed the plaintiff's suit is that the chit filed by the plaintiff has some interpolation. In fact the Court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff although he has based his case on the settlement of accounts, had in his evidence stated that Rs. 5,000/- cash were advanced on 6th March 1955 to defendants. This was inconsistent with his case and this casts doubt on the plaintiff's case. The Court below further held that the plaintiff has not produced any account books. We do not think that there is any substance in the conten­tion raised by the defendants respondents. The plaintiff has brought the suit on the basis of an acknowledgment, where the defendants have acknowledged that Rs. 5,000/- were found due on the settlement of accounts. If the suit was based on that document the plaintiff was not required to produce any account book to show the advances made earlier and the entry in his account books of the earlier advances. (4) The second point taken by the Court below is that the plaintiff has made inconsistent statements. If the suit was based on that document the plaintiff was not required to produce any account book to show the advances made earlier and the entry in his account books of the earlier advances. (4) The second point taken by the Court below is that the plaintiff has made inconsistent statements. In the plaint it was clearly stated that there was a settlement of accounts on the 6th March 1955 and the defendants acknowledged that Rs. 5,000 were due to the plaintiff. In the evidence also in examination-in-chief, he has clearly, stated that there was settlement of accounts with, defendants on 6th March 1955 and it was found that a sum of Rs. 5,000 became due from the defendants. On the same day defendant No. 2 executed Ext. 1 in his shop at Police Bazar, Shillong in his presence. In the cross-examination no doubt the plaintiff has stated that the defendants took Rs. 5,000 on 6th March 1955. This amount was received in cash. What the plaintiff really meant was that on settlement of accounts, the amount which was found due had really been taken by the defendants in cash from time to time. It does not mean that on the 6th March 1955 the settlement of accounts was made and any fresh advance of Rs. 5,000/- was made. The suit was filed on the settlement of accounts. Defendants have admitted that accounts were settled. But the case of the defendants was-that the settlement was obtained under coercion, and further there has been interpolation in the document. There was no evidence on behalf of the defendants to justify such an assertion. The document Ext. 1 is in two parts. The upper part of the document has been marked 'Ext. 1(B)' and the lower part has been marked as 'Ext. 1(A)'. The lower part is admittedly in the handwriting, of the defendant No. 2 in which it is clearly stated that the above sum of Rs. 5,000/- only has been, found due from him on settlement of account on 6th March 1955 English, Sambat 2011 year. Even the defendants in the written statement have ac­cepted that there was settlement of account and that the adjustment of account was acknowledged' on a chit in the form of letter. 5,000/- only has been, found due from him on settlement of account on 6th March 1955 English, Sambat 2011 year. Even the defendants in the written statement have ac­cepted that there was settlement of account and that the adjustment of account was acknowledged' on a chit in the form of letter. Thus they cor­roborate that the latter part of the document is-a genuine document signed by the defendant and the contents were written out by the defendant himself. The plaintiff's case was that the upper portion of this document was written out by his munib. Obviously the upper portion contains details and that must have been written out by the munib which fact was accepted in the lower portion of the document in the hand-writing of the defendant. This document was thus a settlement of account acknowledged by the defendant himself and in our opinion there is no reason to hold that this document is not a genuine document. As I have already said even the defendant does not come to the witness box to deny the genuineness of this document. (5) Mr. Gupta who appears for the respondents, has very strenuously contended that the acknowledgment cannot be the basis of the suit and the acknowledgment if at a)l to be a valid acknowledgment must be made within the period of limitation. He has referred to the following cases. Anup Singh v. Fateh Chand, AIR 1920 All 92, Maganlal Harjibhai v. Amichand Gulabji, AIR 1928 Bom 319 Kshitish Chandra Das v. Umed Mondal, AIR 1925 Cal 338, Shivjiram Dhannalal Marwari v. Gulabchand Kalooram, AIR 1941 Nag 100. These cases in our opinion, are distinguishable from the facts of this case when the suit is brought on the original debt and the limitation is sought to be fixed on the ground of acknowledgment, such an acknowledgment is to be within the period of limitation. But in the present case the suit is brought on the settlement of accounts which embodies a clear acknowledgment of the amount due. The acknowledgment itself contains an implied promise to pay and in these circumstances when the accounts are examined by the parties and the defendants acknowledge that so much amount is due to the plaintiff, such an acknowledgment implies a promise to pay and can be the basis of a suit. The acknowledgment itself contains an implied promise to pay and in these circumstances when the accounts are examined by the parties and the defendants acknowledge that so much amount is due to the plaintiff, such an acknowledgment implies a promise to pay and can be the basis of a suit. Reference in this connection is made to the case of Hiralal v. Badkulal, reported in AIR 1953 SC 225 . In our opinion this appeal should be allowed. The decree of the Court below is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost throughout. BH/P/D.V.C. Appeal allowed. ----------------------