Skip to content


Harish Chandra and ors. Vs. Mt. Kastola Kunwar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All68
AppellantHarish Chandra and ors.
RespondentMt. Kastola Kunwar and ors.
Excerpt:
- - the suit was filed on 2nd january, 1919. the question is whether the acknowledgment of 24th january, 1910, was a good acknowledgment within the meaning of section 19 of the limitation act......was section 19 requires that the acknowledgment should have been made before the expiration of the period prescribed for the suit. the period prescribed for the suit did not expire till 8th august 1910. the application was made before that date. it was, therefore, in time.3. dr. sen for the appellants has argued that the word 'prescribed' in section 19 of the limitation act, must be limited to the period prescribed in the first schedule of that act. there is no warrant for any such limitation. the word 'prescribed' is not defined in the act. it means 'prescribed by any law for the time being in force.' the period of limitation for some classes of suits is not prescribed in the limitation act at all but in some other act, as in the case of the agra tenancy act.4. the word 'prescribed'.....
Judgment:

1. The question in this appeal is one of limitation. The mortgage was executed in the year 1889. Under the twelve year's limitation laid down by the Privy Council in Vasudeva Mudaliar v. Srinivasa Pillai (1907) 30 Mad. 426, the suit would have been time barred. The Legislature, however, by Section 31 of the Limitation Act of 1908 extended limitation to a period of sixty years from the date when the money became payable or two years from the passing of the Act whichever period first expired. This period expired in the case of the present mortgage on 8th August, 1910. Before its expiry, on 24th. January 1910, the mortgagee made an admission of liability. He made a subsequent admission on 1st July, 1916, within twelve years of the former admission. The suit was filed on 2nd January, 1919. The question is whether the acknowledgment of 24th January, 1910, was a good acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act.

2. In our opinion it was Section 19 requires that the acknowledgment should have been made before the expiration of the period prescribed for the suit. The period prescribed for the suit did not expire till 8th August 1910. The application was made before that date. It was, therefore, in time.

3. Dr. Sen for the appellants has argued that the word 'prescribed' in Section 19 of the limitation Act, must be limited to the period prescribed in the First Schedule of that Act. There is no warrant for any such Limitation. The word 'prescribed' is not defined in the Act. It means 'prescribed by any law for the time being in force.' The period of limitation for some classes of suits is not prescribed in the Limitation Act at all but in some other Act, as in the case of the Agra Tenancy Act.

4. The word 'prescribed' would certainly apply to any such period. The period 'prescribed' for the institution of any suit mentioned in the First Schedule of the Limitation Act is no doubt, ordinarily to be ascertained by reference to that Schedule, as is laid down in Section 3 of the Act. Section 31 is a special provision which where it is applicable, overrides Article 132 of the Schedule. The section takes effect 'notwithstanding anything contained in the Act.' In cases governed by the section it is to the section and not to the Schedule that we must look in order to ascertain the period prescribed for the institution of a suit, No other question has been argued.

5. The appeal therefore fails and we dismiss it with costs including in this Court-fees on the higher scale.


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