Skip to content


Hakim Lallu Mal Vs. Pandit Reoti Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924All70; 74Ind.Cas.353
AppellantHakim Lallu Mal
RespondentPandit Reoti Ram
Cases ReferredSri Ram v. Firm Sobha Ram Gopal Rai
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), section 19 - promissory-note--admission of execution not inter partes-acknowledgment. - .....on the face of it, the suit is barred by limitation as it was not filed until the 26th of april 1922. in order to bring it within limitation it was pointed out the in some other suit (not but were these parties) this promissory-note had been exhibited and in that occasion, some time in 1920, the defendant had admitted its execution. the court has held that the mere fact that on the back of the note there is in the liar drawing of the defendant the words 'execution admitted,' and the endorsement of the munsif showing the acts is a sufficient compliance of the provisions of section 19 of the indian limitation act. it seems to me that the mere fact that in some other case the defendant merely admitted the execution of the document is not an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning.....
Judgment:

Ryves, J.

1. This is a civil revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes. The suit was based on a promissory-note executed by the defendant, on the 16th of April 1949. The suit was filed on the 28th of April 1922. The defendant put in a written statement, the second paragraph of which runs as follows:

The plaintiff (who is a Jotshi) led the defeadant to believe that he would perform adequate puja which would have the effect of saving the lives of his children and they would survive the age of one year, and for this the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 30 to the plaintiff out of which Rs. 8 was paid in cash and the balance was payable after the child had survived the age of one year. It was on this under-standing that the promissory-note was written. The child died within a year of its birth and hence nothing was payable. The other ground taken was that the suit was barred by limitation. It appears from the record that five witnesses on behalf of the defendant were present but, as a matter of fact, the Court took no evidence at all, holding that it was not open to the defendant who admitted the execution of the promissory-note to plead want of consideration and reliance was placed on Sri Ram v. Firm Sobha Ram Gopal Rai 67 Ind. Cas. 513 : 20 A.L.J. 315 : (1922) A.I.R. (A.) 213 : 4 U.P.L.R. (A.) 153 : 44 A. 321. I do not think that, ruling is applicable in this case. I think under the 3rd proviso to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court should have allowed, evidence to be taken on this point. But it is unnecessary to decide this as I hold against the plaintiff on the second point. On the face of it, the suit is barred by limitation as it was not filed until the 26th of April 1922. In order to bring it within limitation it was pointed out the in some other suit (not but were these parties) this promissory-note had been exhibited and in that occasion, some time in 1920, the defendant had admitted its execution. The Court has held that the mere fact that on the back of the note there is in the liar drawing of the defendant the words 'Execution admitted,' and the endorsement of the Munsif showing the acts is a sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act. It seems to me that the mere fact that in some other case the defendant merely admitted the execution of the document is not an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of the section. No evidence was taken and there is nothing but the endorsement. In my opinion it has not been shown that the suit was within limitation, it, therefore, should have been dismissed. I accordingly allow this application and set aside the decree of the Court below with costs.


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