Skip to content


Suggusetty Subbayya Vs. Irugulapati Gangayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1926Mad183; 92Ind.Cas.687
AppellantSuggusetty Subbayya
Respondentirugulapati Gangayya
Cases ReferredMohammad Abdullah Khan v. Bank Instalment Co. Ltd.
Excerpt:
evidence act (i of 1872), section 114 - limitation act (ix of 1908), section 20--payment towards decree--payment towards interest--denial of payment--presumption--extension of limitation. - .....and presumes from the evidence of the decree-holder's clerk that the money was paid towards the decree, and that that includes principal and interest. i think that is a fair presumption, because ordinarily one does not split up the principal and interest in a decree. another presumption was open to the learned subordinate judge, that if petitioner lied, he had something to conceal; and possibly, it was his knowledge that he paid for principal and interest when he paid towards the decree which drove him to falsehood. each case must be decided on its own facts; and merely because a presumption has been unfounded in one case, as that which is discussed in mohammad abdullah khan v. bank instalment co. ltd. 6 a.l.j. 611 it does not follow that a presumption may not be made in another.....
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. The only question raised in this appeal is really one of fact whether the payment on which the respondent relies to save limitation was made on account of interest. The best evidence in' such a matter is the evidence of the payer himself and if he had gone into the box and explained how he came to pay the Rs. 2 for principal only, the task of judging this question might have been considerably lightened. Unfortunately, he chose to deny payment altogether which the lower Appellate Court finds to be untrue, it is then driven to presumptions and presumes from the evidence of the decree-holder's clerk that the money was paid towards the decree, and that that includes principal and interest. I think that is a fair presumption, because ordinarily one does not split up the principal and interest in a decree. Another presumption was open to the learned Subordinate Judge, that if petitioner lied, he had something to conceal; and possibly, it was his knowledge that he paid for principal and interest when he paid towards the decree which drove him to falsehood. Each case must be decided on its own facts; and merely because a presumption has been unfounded in one case, as that which is discussed in Mohammad Abdullah Khan v. Bank Instalment Co. Ltd. 6 A.L.J. 611 it does not follow that a presumption may not be made in another case. In the Allahabad case, the Judges say that the presumption will not enable them to hold that the payment was made for interest; not, that in all cases it is invalid. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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