Skip to content


Malladi Krishnayya Vs. Tondepu Venkatappayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in80Ind.Cas.940
AppellantMalladi Krishnayya
RespondentTondepu Venkatappayya and ors.
Cases ReferredJugal Kishore v. Fakruddin.
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), section 19 - acknowledgment--liability--burden of proof. - .....the mischief of section 19 indian limitation act. there were 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 alter taking accounts. 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 he 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 has dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. Plaintiff accordingly prefers this Civil Revision Petition. The point lor decision is whether 4th defendant has made such acknowledgment of liability as falls within the mischief of Section 19 Indian Limitation Act. There were 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 alter taking accounts. 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 he 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 defendant. 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 plaintiffs purpose and the statute requires nothing more. So long as the 4th defendant is the person against whom the properly 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. 3 A.L.J. 680 : (1906) A.W.N. 286.

2. 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 //