Skip to content


Vancheswara Sastri Vs. Narayana Ayyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectBanking
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933Mad251a
AppellantVancheswara Sastri
RespondentNarayana Ayyar
Cases ReferredRakkapan v. Suppiah
Excerpt:
- - he is clearly wrong because it is enough if there was any subsequent agreement for interest as to which the payment itself is the best evidence. the suit was clearly in time......for the sixth month ceremony and nuptials.2. the former part of the instrument which is the promissory note is inadmissible as it is insufficiently stamped. but the latter part contains an express acknowledgment of a prior liability and is admissible as such to save limitation. it is found that on 2nd may 1926 the defendant signed an entry on the promissory note, written in the handwriting of his son, stating that in april 1925 rs. 25 has been sent by money order and that rs. 12-8-0 was paid on that date making up rs. 37-8-0 on account of interest for one year.3. the learned subordinate judge says that this entry does not save limitation as a payment of interest because there was no agreement for interest at the time of the marriage and the nuptials and sixth-month ceremony. he is.....
Judgment:

Pandalai, J.

1. This case is fully covered by the decision in Rakkapan v. Suppiah : AIR1930Mad485 . Here as in that case the promissory note dated 14th May 1924 consists of two parts and is as follows:

Rupees 500-I, Narayana Iyer, son of Vanchi Patter of Kavaseeri Ottupura Gramam, hereby promise to pay Vancheswara Sastri, son of Gopalkrishna Pattar of Kavasseri Ottupura Gramam, or order, the above sum, Rs. 500, with interest at 7 per cent per annum; I have received full consideration by adjustment of the sums which I owe you, namely, Rs. 800, due to you by me on the occasion of your marriage with Laxmi my granddaughter for her jewels; Rs. 200 due for cloths, silks and vessels for the sixth month ceremony and nuptials.

2. The former part of the instrument which is the promissory note is inadmissible as it is insufficiently stamped. But the latter part contains an express acknowledgment of a prior liability and is admissible as such to save limitation. It is found that on 2nd May 1926 the defendant signed an entry on the promissory note, written in the handwriting of his son, stating that in April 1925 Rs. 25 has been sent by money order and that Rs. 12-8-0 was paid on that date making up Rs. 37-8-0 on account of interest for one year.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge says that this entry does not save limitation as a payment of interest because there was no agreement for interest at the time of the marriage and the nuptials and sixth-month ceremony. He is clearly wrong because it is enough if there was any subsequent agreement for interest as to which the payment itself is the best evidence. The suit was clearly in time. The decree of the lower Court is set aside and there will be a decree as prayed with costs in both Courts.


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