Skip to content


Ziulnissa Ladli Begam Saheb Vs. Motidev Ratandev - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1888)ILR12Bom268
AppellantZiulnissa Ladli Begam Saheb
RespondentMotidev Ratandev
Excerpt:
limitation act (xv of 1877), section 19 - oral evidence of acknowledgment--advisability--acknowledgments made before the coming into fore of act xv of 1877--evidence. - - but section 19 of the limitation act, xv of 1877, says clearly that oral evidence of the contents of an acknowledgment may not be received, nor is there any saving of acknowledgments received or given back before the act came into operation......it is said, were given back, and it is contended that, on proof of this, they can be proved by oral evidence so as to bridge over the interval of four years between the original obligation and the acknowledgment actually produced. but section 19 of the limitation act, xv of 1877, says clearly that oral evidence of the contents of an acknowledgment may not be received, nor is there any saving of acknowledgments received or given back before the act came into operation. we are constrained, therefore, to apply the enactment to which we have referred, and the true sense of which cannot be doubted after a comparison with the corresponding section 20 of act ix of 1871. it excludes the intermediate acknowledgments as resting on oral proof, by which the one of 3rd november, 1880, might have.....
Judgment:

West, J.

1. In this case an acknowledgment, dated 3rd November 1880, is relied on by the plaintiff as having, as the last of an annual series, kept alive his right to sue for a debt contracted and due on the 22nd October, 1876. The intermediate acknowledgments, it is said, were given back, and it is contended that, on proof of this, they can be proved by oral evidence so as to bridge over the interval of four years between the original obligation and the acknowledgment actually produced. But Section 19 of the Limitation Act, XV of 1877, says clearly that oral evidence of the contents of an acknowledgment may not be received, nor is there any saving of acknowledgments received or given back before the Act came into operation. We are constrained, therefore, to apply the enactment to which we have referred, and the true sense of which cannot be doubted after a comparison with the corresponding Section 20 of Act IX of 1871. It excludes the intermediate acknowledgments as resting on oral proof, by which the one of 3rd November, 1880, might have been made to bear on a debt then still not barred by limitation, and we must consequently reverse the decrees of the Courts below and reject the claim. Costs in this Court to be borne by the respondent and in the Courts below as there adjudicated.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //