Skip to content


Alampalli Athmaramayya Vs. S. Seshappaiyer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Limitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad409; (1941)1MLJ173
AppellantAlampalli Athmaramayya
RespondentS. Seshappaiyer
Excerpt:
- - 1. the petitioner filed a suit on a promissory note dated the 17th july, 1933 and on that promissory note were acknowledgments up to the 26th february, 1934. the plaint was filed on the 1st december, 1937, which was more than three years after the last acknowledgment endorsed on the promissory note......on the promissory note. to save limitation, the petitioner relied on two postcards dated the 14th january, 1935 and the 25th march, 1935. the district munsif of kollegal, in whose court the plaint was presented, rejected the plaint on the ground that the postcards of the 14th january, 1935 and the 25th march, 1935 did not acknowledge this particular debt.2. it is true that on the face of these two postcards it cannot be said that they necessarily refer to the suit debt; but the plaintiff's only contention here is that the plaint should not have been rejected in limine; and that he should have been given an opportunity after the plaint was admitted to prove by evidence that these postcards related to the suit debt. i do not find anything in section 19 of the limitation act or in the.....
Judgment:

Horwill, J.

1. The petitioner filed a suit on a promissory note dated the 17th July, 1933 and on that promissory note were acknowledgments up to the 26th February, 1934. The plaint was filed on the 1st December, 1937, which was more than three years after the last acknowledgment endorsed on the promissory note. To save limitation, the petitioner relied on two postcards dated the 14th January, 1935 and the 25th March, 1935. The District Munsif of Kollegal, in whose Court the plaint was presented, rejected the plaint on the ground that the postcards of the 14th January, 1935 and the 25th March, 1935 did not acknowledge this particular debt.

2. It is true that on the face of these two postcards it cannot be said that they necessarily refer to the suit debt; but the plaintiff's only contention here is that the plaint should not have been rejected in limine; and that he should have been given an opportunity after the plaint was admitted to prove by evidence that these postcards related to the suit debt. I do not find anything in Section 19 of the Limitation Act or in the Evidence Act which precludes the letting in of oral evidence to explain to what debts the postcards necessarily refer.

3. The petition is therefore allowed and the District Munsif ordered to admit the plaint and to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. The costs of this petition will be costs in the cause.


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