Skip to content


Lal Singh Vs. Gulab Rai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933All363
AppellantLal Singh
RespondentGulab Rai
Cases Referred and Ram Prasad v. Mohan Lal A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- .....the learned small cause court judge observed that:none of those payments is in the defendant's handwriting. the last payment is of 7th may 192g. under these payments there is an endorsement in the defendant's hand to the effect that these payments had been made by him. the endorsement was obviously obtained from him after 7th may 1926.2. he further noted that the plaintiff was unable to prove that the endorsement by the defendant was made within the period of limitation. as regards the endorsements with respect to the payments made after 7th may 1926 the learned judge observed that as those payments were made after the expiry of the period of limitation, they could be of no avail to the plaintiff. in this view of the matter he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. i am unable to agree with.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Iqbal Ahmad, J.

1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision and is directed against the decree of a Court of Small Causes. The suit was for recovery of the amount due on the basis of an. instalment bond dated 22nd December 1924. The plaintiff alleged that certain payments that were made by the defendant gave a fresh start to the period of limitation and that, in view of those payments, the claim was within time. The defendant did not contest the suit. The learned Small Cause Court Judge observed that:

none of those payments is in the defendant's handwriting. The last payment is of 7th May 192G. Under these payments there is an endorsement in the defendant's hand to the effect that these payments had been made by him. The endorsement was obviously obtained from him after 7th May 1926.

2. He further noted that the plaintiff was unable to prove that the endorsement by the defendant was made within the period of limitation. As regards the endorsements with respect to the payments made after 7th May 1926 the learned Judge observed that as those payments were made after the expiry of the period of limitation, they could be of no avail to the plaintiff. In this view of the matter he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. I am unable to agree with the learned Judge of the Court below. He is not right in observing that 'none of those payments is in the defendant's hand-writing' As a matter of fact, the endorsements about the payments made on 6th May 1929, and on 13th November 1931 are in the defendant's hand-writing. The endorsements about the payments made up to 7th May 1926, are no doubt in the plaintiff's hand-writing but below those endorsements there is an acknowledgment by the defendant in his own hand-writing to the effect that Rs. 10 had been paid in part satisfaction of the debt due on the bond. In my judgment this endorsement by the defendant though not proved to have been made within the period of limitation was sufficient to extend to the plaintiff the benefit of the provisions of Section 20, Limitation Act. The part payment of the principal of the debt within the period of limitation gives a fresh start to the period of limitation provided an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the hand-writing of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment. In this case, as already stated, the acknowledgment of payment is in the hand-writing of the defendant. But it is not necessary that the acknowledgment of payment should be made in writing by the debtor within the period of limitation. It is enough if the payment is made within the period of limitation and it does not matter that the acknowledgment in writing is made by the debtor after the expiry of the period of limitation.

3. I cannot agree with the view of the learned Small Cause Court Judge that, in order to be of use under Section 20, Limitation Act, the hand-writing of the person making the payment referred to in the proviso to that section must have come into existence before the expiration of the period of limitation. To so interpret the proviso would be to import into the proviso the words 'before the expiry of the period of limitation' words which are not there, and I find no warrant for doing so. The view that I take is in consonance with the view taken in Venkatasubbu v.Appusundram (1894) 17 Mad 92, Marina Ammayi v. Sundayya : AIR1929Mad432 , and Ram Prasad v. Mohan Lal A.I.R. 1923 Nag. 117. It is manifest therefore that the time began to run against the plaintiff from 7th May 1926, but we find that within three years of that date, viz., 6th May 1929, another payment was made by the defendant and an acknowledgment of that payment appears on the bond in suit in the defendant's handwriting. The suit was brought within three years from the last mentioned date and was within time. For the reasons given above I allow this application, set aside the decree of the learned Small Cause Court Judge and decree the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.


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