Skip to content


Harendra Chandra Bhattacharjee Vs. Gagan Chandra Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in35Ind.Cas.177
AppellantHarendra Chandra Bhattacharjee
RespondentGagan Chandra Das
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), section 20 - payment of a sum on decree for money not hearing interest, effect of--application to certify payment under decree, if controls section 20. - .....than three years after the first application which was made on the 7th january 1913. the decree-holder, however, alleged that there was a payment of re. 1 by the judgment-debtor on the 27th august 1915, that is, within three years of the first application for execution. it has been found by the munsif that the payment of re. 1 was, in fact, made by the judgment-debtor as alleged by the decree-holder. but there is nothing to show that it was paid by way of interest and the decree did not bear any interest. we are of opinion that, although the decree-holder may either apply to certify the payment before execution or may do so in his application for execution of the decree, the provisions of section 20 of the indian limitation act are in no way affected by it. the claim in the.....
Judgment:

1. This is a reference made in connection with an application for execution of a decree passed on the 19th December 1911. This application was the second application for the execution of the decree, and it was made on the 28th January 1916--more than three years after the first application which was made on the 7th January 1913. The decree-holder, however, alleged that there was a payment of Re. 1 by the judgment-debtor on the 27th August 1915, that is, within three years of the first application for execution. It has been found by the Munsif that the payment of Re. 1 was, in fact, made by the judgment-debtor as alleged by the decree-holder. But there is nothing to show that it was paid by way of interest and the decree did not bear any interest. We are of opinion that, although the decree-holder may either apply to certify the payment before execution or may do so in his application for execution of the decree, the provisions of Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act are in no way affected by it. The claim in the original suit, no doubt, included interest; but that interest had been rightly held by the Munsif to have merged in the decree and, as the decree did not bear any interest, any payment made by the judgment-debtor must be taken to have been made in part payment of the principal, in which case it must appear in the handwriting of the judgment-debtor or by his agent duly authorized in this behalf, in order that a fresh period of limitation may run from the date of such payment under Section 20 of the Limitation Act. Let the records be sent back.


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