Skip to content


Sant Lal and ors. Vs. Beni Prasad and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All340; 87Ind.Cas.985
AppellantSant Lal and ors.
RespondentBeni Prasad and anr.
Excerpt:
.....of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the..........this case. that was not a case of accounts between the parties and the wording of that letter is very different from the present one. in our opinion the matter is really concluded by the privy council case, mani ram seth v. seth rup chand (1906) 33 cal. 1047.4. we, therefore, dismiss the appeal but without costs as the respondents are not represented.
Judgment:

Ryves, J.

1. In this appeal the short point is whether the letter sent by the defendants on the 20th of January, 1917 is an admission of liability within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act. The suit was one for balance of account and admittedly was time barred unless limitation was extended by this letter.

2. Both Courts have found that it was a clear admission of liability within the meaning of that section. The decisive words are that the writer admitted the existence of a running account between the parties and went on to say that his representatives would in Phagun or Chait compare accounts and pay what was found to be due.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the case of Jageshwar Roy v. Raj Narain Mitter (1904) 31 Cal. 195. In every case of this kind the document in question has to be interpreted by its own language and it is not very helpful to cite rulings as to the meaning to be attached to a document in another case unless the wording is the same. The case of Jageshwar Roy v. Raj Narain Mitter is entirely distinguishable from this case. That was not a case of accounts between the parties and the wording of that letter is very different from the present one. In our opinion the matter is really concluded by the Privy Council case, Mani Ram Seth v. Seth Rup Chand (1906) 33 Cal. 1047.

4. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal but without costs as the respondents are not represented.


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