Skip to content


V.A.R. Arunachellam Chettyar and ors. Vs. V. Subramanya Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in3Ind.Cas.407
AppellantV.A.R. Arunachellam Chettyar and ors.
RespondentV. Subramanya Aiyar
Excerpt:
limitation act (xv of 1877), section 19 - acknowledgment of liability--signing account hook containing computation of interest--limitation. - .....it implies that there was a debt subsisting on that date for which interest was payable. that the 1st defendant so understood it is clear from his own deposition. he says when i signed ex. c my idea was that i was signing an entry in the book as to interest and that i was liable for interest on an existing note.' this shows that the respondent understood it in the sense which we have indicated. we must, therefore, reverse the decree so far as the 1st defendant is concerned and pass a decree for the amount against him also. the decree will be modified accordingly. the appellant is entitled to his costs.
Judgment:

1. We are unable to agree with the Judge that the suit against the respondent is barred by limitation. Ex. 0 is relied on as an acknowledgment by 1st defendant. It is dated 15th July 1906 and it calculates interest due up to 16th July, the date following. It implies that there was a debt subsisting on that date for which interest was payable. That the 1st defendant so understood it is clear from his own deposition. He says When I signed Ex. C my idea was that I was signing an entry in the book as to interest and that I was liable for interest on an existing note.' This shows that the respondent understood it in the sense which we have indicated. We must, therefore, reverse the decree so far as the 1st defendant is concerned and pass a decree for the amount against him also. The decree will be modified accordingly. The appellant is entitled to his costs.


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