Skip to content


Jaggi Lal and ors. Vs. Sri Ram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Civil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1912)ILR34All464
AppellantJaggi Lal and ors.
RespondentSri Ram and ors.
Excerpt:
act no. xv of 1877 (indian limitation act), schedule ii, articles 110 and 116 - suit to recover rent on a registered lease--limitation. - - the plaintiffs, however, have failed to show that these accounts bear the signature of the defendants or their authorized agent. in this respect they have failed to satisfy us that the entries in question operate as an acknowledgement within the meaning of section 19 of the limitation act......the 1st of december, 1883, and registered on the 31st of december, 1883. the plaintiff's claim six years' arrears. the court below has given them a decree for three years' arrears, holding that the claim for three years is barred by limitation.2. the plaintiffs appeal, and it is contended that the defendants have made an acknowledgement of their liability, which, under the provisions of section 19 of the limitation act, operates to save limitation. this acknowledgement is said to be found in the defendants' account books. extracts of these account books are on the record. they contain certain entries relating to the rent of the land in suit. the plaintiffs, however, have failed to show that these accounts bear the signature of the defendants or their authorized agent. in this respect.....
Judgment:

Henry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent based on a registered lease executed on the 1st of December, 1883, and registered on the 31st of December, 1883. The plaintiff's claim six years' arrears. The court below has given them a decree for three years' arrears, holding that the claim for three years is barred by limitation.

2. The plaintiffs appeal, and it is contended that the defendants have made an acknowledgement of their liability, which, under the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, operates to save limitation. This acknowledgement is said to be found in the defendants' account books. Extracts of these account books are on the record. They contain certain entries relating to the rent of the land in suit. The plaintiffs, however, have failed to show that these accounts bear the signature of the defendants or their authorized agent. In this respect they have failed to satisfy us that the entries in question operate as an acknowledgement within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act.

3. If is further contended that the lease being a registered one, they are entitled to sue within six years under Article 116. In a similar case decided by Mr. Justice Burkitt, J. Ram Narain v. Kamta Singh (1903) I.L.R. 26 All. 138 it was decided that Article 110 was applicable to a suit of this nature. The learned Judge observed :--'I do not understand why when the Article (110) apparently plainly provides for the case now before me, I should go out of my way and hold that Article 116 applies.' We entirely agree with the view of Mr. Justice Burkitt in the case referred to. We are aware that the question has been decided differently elsewhere, but there has been no unanimity of opinion. Under these circumstances we prefer to follow the decision of our own Court. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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