Skip to content


Krishnayya Vs. Venkatappayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad134
AppellantKrishnayya
RespondentVenkatappayya and ors.
Cases ReferredJugal Kishore v. Fakruddin
Excerpt:
- .....mischief of section 19, indian limitation act. there wore two partners, first defendant and one seshayya, father of 4th defendant. on 1st december, 1918, (exhibit c,) 4th defendant wrote to plaintiff:in respect of the amount due to you under the joint account opened with you in the names of my father and rajasree kottumasu narasimham garu (1st defendant) i agree to pay you the whole amount with interest after taking accounts.2. the date of this letter will admittedly save the bar of limitation and it seems to be a clear acknowledgment of liability. it is strenuously contended that 4th defendant had no business to make this acknowledgment at this date that be was neither partner nor agent and acted gratuitously. i do not think that the onus rests upon plaintiff to prove why the.....
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. The suit is for Rs. 252-9-3 (Rupees two hundred and fifty-two, annas nine and pies three only) due on dealings. The lower Court has found that the amount is due but had dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. Plaintiff accordingly prefers this Civil Revision Petition. The point for decision is whether 4th defendant has made such acknowledgment of liability as falls within the mischief of Section 19, Indian Limitation Act. There wore two partners, first defendant and one Seshayya, father of 4th defendant. On 1st December, 1918, (Exhibit C,) 4th defendant wrote to plaintiff:

In respect of the amount due to you under the joint account opened with you in the names of my father and Rajasree Kottumasu Narasimham Garu (1st defendant) I agree to pay you the whole amount with interest after taking accounts.

2. The date of this letter will admittedly save the bar of limitation and it seems to be a clear acknowledgment of liability. It is strenuously contended that 4th defendant had no business to make this acknowledgment at this date that be was neither partner nor agent and acted gratuitously. I do not think that the onus rests upon plaintiff to prove why the acknowledgment was made; that was a fact peculiarly within the knowledge of the 4th Idefendant. No doubt if the plaintiff wished to establish that 4th defendant by his acknowledgment committed other defendants also he would have to prove some sort of agency and authority and that is the only point which the lower Court has considered. As regards himself 4th defendant's bare acknowledgment is sufficient for plaintiff's purpose and the statute requires nothing more. So long as the 4th defendant is the person against whom the property or right is claimed it does not matter whether at the moment of his making the acknowledgment the; claim could have been enforced. Jugal Kishore v. Fakruddin (1906) 29 All. 90.

3. I find, therefore, that there is no bar of limitation as against 4th defendant, and. plaintiff is entitled to a decree against such assets of ancestral property of Seshayya as can be traced to 4th defendant. Once the bar of limitation is removed there is no doubt that 4th defendant is bound by his pious obligation. Costs against 4th defendant throughout.


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