Skip to content


Gobind NaraIn and anr. Vs. Uma Shankar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1924)ILR46All892
AppellantGobind NaraIn and anr.
RespondentUma Shankar
Cases Referred and Mohesh Lal v. Busunt Kumaree
Excerpt:
principal and agent - acknowledgment of liability by agent--letter written by munim under the name of the firm. - - 1. the only question in this appeal is whether a certain letter, exhibit 2, is a good acknowledgment of liability so as to extend limitation against the defendant appellant within the meaning of section 19 of the limitation act. such a signature has, however, been held to be good in mathura das v. it was distinctly denied that he was authorized to execute a hundi......that he was, on the ground of an admission made by the defendant that piyare lal used to write letters on behalf of his principal. no evidence was offered by the plaintiffs on this point. no question was put as to whether this particular letter was written by the authority of the principal or as to whether piyare lal was authorized to acknowledge debts on behalf of his principal. it was distinctly denied that he was authorized to execute a hundi. we think that the mere fact that the defendant used to write letters on behalf of his principal is not sufficient in law to enable the court to infer that he was an authorized agent for the purpose of making an acknowledgment of liability. on this ground we allow the appeal, and as the suit, apart from the acknowledgment, was admittedly.....
Judgment:

Daniels and Neave, JJ.

1. The only question in this appeal is whether a certain letter, Exhibit 2, is a good acknowledgment of liability so as to extend limitation against the defendant appellant within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The letter purports to be from the defendant's firm, Ram Charan Jagdish Prasad, to the plaintiffs' firm, Sheo Baksh Sri Narain. As far as the contents of the letter are concerned it contains an acknowledgment of liability sufficient to come within the section. It was written by Piyare Lal, the munim of the defendant. It bears no signature other than the name of the firm in the heading of the letter. Such a signature has, however, been held to be good in Mathura Das v. Babu Lal (1878) I.L.R. 1 All. 683 and Mohesh Lal v. Busunt Kumaree (1880) I.L.R. 6 Calc. 340. The question remains, however, whether there is proof that Piyare Lal was authorized to make an acknowledgment on behalf of his principal within the meaning of Explanation 2 of the section. The court below holds that he was, on the ground of an admission made by the defendant that Piyare Lal used to write letters on behalf of his principal. No evidence was offered by the plaintiffs on this point. No question was put as to whether this particular letter was written by the authority of the principal or as to whether Piyare Lal was authorized to acknowledge debts on behalf of his principal. It was distinctly denied that he was authorized to execute a hundi. We think that the mere fact that the defendant used to write letters on behalf of his principal is not sufficient in law to enable the court to infer that he was an authorized agent for the purpose of making an acknowledgment of liability. On this ground we allow the appeal, and as the suit, apart from the acknowledgment, was admittedly beyond time, we dismiss the suit with costs in all courts.


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