JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — Defendants in Title Suit No. 10 of 1975 of the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Sambalpur, have preferred this appeal challenging to the judgment and decree passed on 4th October, 1978. 2. Plaintiff/Respondent filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of contract with respect to plaint-schedule ‘A’ property and in the alternative to grant a decree for Rs. 9, 496/-with costs and future interest. In that respect, plaintiff’s case is that from 3.5.1972 to 28.5.1972 the defendants borrowed from the plaintiff both in cash and kind i.e., gold and clothings from his shop amounting to Rs. 8, 000/-. Having no means to repay the same but acknowledging the amount due, defendants proposed to sell the Schedule ‘A’ property in favour of the plaintiffs to discharge that loan. Accordingly, from the money taken from the plaintiff, defendants purchased non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs. 560/- on 13.5.1972 and a sale deed was scribed on that (Ext.11). The defendants on different pretext did not come forward to register that document. Thus, plaintiff obtained a promissory note (Ext.9) from the defendants for Rs. 8,478.22 paise. While executing that pronote, defendants prayed for a fortnight’s time to take a decision relating to sale of the Schedule ‘A’ property. When the defendants tried to delay the mater, on 5.8.1972 a Panchayati was convened in the village. In that Panchayati defendants admitting their liabilities executed an agreement (Ext.10) undertaking therein either to repay the whole amount by Phalguna Purnima i.e., by 18.3.1973 or else to liquidate the loan by executing and registering the sale deed for Schedule ‘A’ land. In spite of such undertakings and promise defendants defaulted in repaying the loan or transferring the Schedule ‘A’ land and therefore, plaintiff prayed for the relief of specific performance of contract or recovery of the aforesaid amount with costs and future interests. 3. Defendants filed a joint written statement denying to the allegation of entering into a contract for sale of Schedule ‘A’ land at a price of Rs. 8,000/-. They also denied to the liability to the extent of the aforesaid amount, but while ad¬mitting about taking clothes and cash etc. on credit, defendants admitted their liability to the extent of Rs, 2,320.20 paise. Defendants also pleaded that plaintiff is a money-lender and therefore his suit is not maintainable. 4. 8,000/-. They also denied to the liability to the extent of the aforesaid amount, but while ad¬mitting about taking clothes and cash etc. on credit, defendants admitted their liability to the extent of Rs, 2,320.20 paise. Defendants also pleaded that plaintiff is a money-lender and therefore his suit is not maintainable. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court took up the trial of the suit on the following issues : 1. Whether defendant No. 1 agreed to sell ‘A’ schedule land to plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 8000/- and for that received ad¬vance consideration in form of cash and commodities ? 2. Whether the suit pro-note dated 7.6.72 is true and valid and supported by consideration ? 3. Whether in Panchayat accounts between the parties were settled and defendant No.1 was required to pay Rs. 2,320.20 paise ? 4. Whether defendant No. 1 acknowledged past liability by executing the agreement dated 5.8.1972 ? 5. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender in regular course of business ? 6. Whether defendant No. 1 intended to mortgage the ‘A’ schedule land with plaintiff and purchased stamp worth Rs. 560 - ? 7. To what relief ? 5. At the stage of hearing of the suit, plaintiff examined himself and his son as P.Ws. 1 and 2, a village gentleman as P.W. No. 3 and the Scribe of the sale deed Ext. 11 as P.W. 4 and relied on the accounts sheets marked Exts. 1 to 6, letters from defendant No. 1 marked Exts. 7 and 8, pro-note Ext. 9, the agree¬ment Ext. 10, and the letter written by P.W.4 to the plaintiff, Ext. 12. In reply defendants examined defendant No. 1 as D.W. 1 and two other witnesses. No documentary evidence was adduced from the side of the defendants. 6. On assessment of the evidence on record trial Court recorded the finding that the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, particularly the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and Exts. 9 and 10, do not prove relating to an agreement for sale of Sched¬ule ‘A’ property and, therefore, though such an oral contract is admissible, but the same is not enforceable. Learned Subordinate Judge recorded the further finding that after execution of Ext. 10, Ext.9 lost its importance because the defendants admitted their liability to the extent of Rs. 8,478.22 paise by executing the later document (Ext.10). Learned Subordinate Judge recorded the further finding that after execution of Ext. 10, Ext.9 lost its importance because the defendants admitted their liability to the extent of Rs. 8,478.22 paise by executing the later document (Ext.10). He further held that since that was a document acknowledging the liability, therefore, non-impounding of the said document could not render it void or inadmissible. Trial Court also found the sale deed Ext.11 and the letter Ext.12 are self-serving documents and no relief can be granted on the basis of such documents. On appreciating the accounts-sheets Exts.1 to 6 and agreement Ext.10 though the Court below found that defendants are liable to repay the amount of Rs. 8,478.22 paise, the trial Court also recorded the findings that through the evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 3 it has not been proved that plain¬tiff is a money-lender in regular course of business. According¬ly, a money decree was passed for the claimed amount. 7. Challenging to the above decree, the contention which the appellants have advanced is that when the defendants have fairly conceded about their liability to the extent of Rs. 2, 320.20 paise and that the accounts-sheets Ext.4, Ext.5 and Ext.7 have not been proved on record, the monetary liability occurring from those documents could not have been decreed against the defendants. Appellants also argued that Ext. 10 is not admissible in evidence in view of provision of law in Section 34 of the Evidence Act and the provision in Orissa Money Lenders Act and therefore defendants are not liable to pay anything to the plain¬tiff. Accordingly, they challenge to the impugned decree. 8. On perusal of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge, this Court finds that he has correctly read the evidence to record the findings in the manner indicated above. This Court does not find any substance in the contention of the appellant that Exts. 4, 5 and 7 have not been properly proved. Signature of the appellant No.1 appears in all the accounts-sheets below most of the transactions and a comparison of such signatures has been properly and correctly made by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge. The signature appearing vide Exts. 4/A and 4/B appear to the naked eye to have bee affixed by the admitted signatures of the defendants in the other documents. The entry vide Ext. The signature appearing vide Exts. 4/A and 4/B appear to the naked eye to have bee affixed by the admitted signatures of the defendants in the other documents. The entry vide Ext. 5 relating to the articles sup¬plied corresponds to the chits (letters) written by appellant No. 1 in Exts. 7 and 8. Therefore, non-obtaining of signature on Ext.5 does not make the account non-accountable. It is however seen that in Ext.5 a sum of Rs. 570/- towards the cost of the stamp papers, sum of Rs. 20/- paid to Amin for preparing a map, has been added to the amount. In that suit also an amount of Rs. 3500/- as the arrear dues has also been added. Therefore, it appears that the acknowledgement in Ext. 10 relating to the liability to the extent of Rs. 8478.22 paise is not only for the articles purchased or loan taken from the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff has not advanced any oral or documentary evidence relating to a past liability of Rs. 3,500/-, therefore the Court below should not have allowed refund of the same in favour of the plaintiff or as against the defendants. Similarly, when the Court below has disbelieved and, rightly so, relating to an agreement of sale of ‘A’ schedule land, therefore, he should not have saddled the price of the stamp paper and the Amin fee totalling to the tune of Rs. 590/- to be recovered from the defendants. Therefore, if the aforesaid total sum of Rs. 4,090/- (arrear dues Rs. 3500)/- + stamp worth Rs. 570/- + Amin fee for map Rs. 20/-) are deducted, then the transactions for which the defendants are liable, amounts to Rs, 4388.22 paise. As noted above, defendants in their written statement have admitted to their liability to the extent of Rs. 2320.20 paise. But, on assessment of the Exts. 1 to 7, this Court finds that plaintiff proved the case entitling themselves to recover a sum of Rs. 4388.22 paise. To that extent, therefore, the factual finding of the trial Court is bound to be corrected. 9. So far as the contention of inadmissibility of Ext. 10 is concerned, this Court finds no substance in the argument ad¬vanced by the appellant in as much as it was only a document acknowledging the liability and nothing more than that. 4388.22 paise. To that extent, therefore, the factual finding of the trial Court is bound to be corrected. 9. So far as the contention of inadmissibility of Ext. 10 is concerned, this Court finds no substance in the argument ad¬vanced by the appellant in as much as it was only a document acknowledging the liability and nothing more than that. Similar¬ly, the contention of the appellants that the plaintiff is a money lender is not proved from stray transactions made with D.Ws.2 and 3. In any event, the bulk of the claim as against the defendants is not because of any hand-loan but because of pur¬chase of clothes and articles on loan and extending of friendly loan from time to time, because then the defendant No.1 was busy in the marriage of his daughter and mostly incurred expenditures for that purpose. For the aforesaid reason, the findings on the relevant issues of the Court below are not liable to be inter¬fered with. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part for recovery of Rs. 4388.22 paise (four thousand three hundred eighty eight and paise twenty two only) and the impugned judgment and decree is modified to that extent. The decretal dues shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the impugned decree till the date of the realisation. 11. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Hearing fee is assessed at contested scale. Parties are directed to bear their respective cost of litigation in this forum. Appeal allowed in part.