Skip to content


Jogesh Chandra Saha and anr. Vs. Monindra NaraIn Chakravarty and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1932Cal620
AppellantJogesh Chandra Saha and anr.
RespondentMonindra NaraIn Chakravarty and ors.
Cases Referred and Achola Sundari Debi v. Doman Sundari Debi. As
Excerpt:
- .....which saves limitation as against the heirs of jamini.2. this reference has been made by the-learned munsif inasmuch as he is of opinion that the law on the point is uncertain because of a conflict between the decisions in the cases of arjun bam pal v. rahima banu [1912] 14 i. c. 128 and achola sundari debi v. doman sundari debi. as stated by the learned munsif the question is really settled by section 21, clause (2), lim. act, which lays down:nothing in sections 19 and 20 renders one of several joint contractors, partners, executors or mortgagees chargeable by reason only of a writ-tea acknowledgment signed or, of a payment made by or, by the agent of, any other or others of them.3. the case of arjun ram pal supra, [1912] 14 i. c. 128 appears to have been correctly decided, the.....
Judgment:

Jack, J.

1. This is a reference under Order 46, Civil P. C., made by the Munsif, Second Court, Manikgunj in connexion with Small Cause Court Suit No. 1762 of 1931. A sum of money was borrowed by two brothers Jamini and Jatindra on a simple money bond. The last payment of interest was made by Jamini alone and the question is whether the debt is time-barred against Jatindra. Admittedly it is so barred apart from the payment made by Jamini which saves limitation as against the heirs of Jamini.

2. This reference has been made by the-learned Munsif inasmuch as he is of opinion that the law on the point is uncertain because of a conflict between the decisions in the cases of Arjun Bam Pal v. Rahima Banu [1912] 14 I. C. 128 and Achola Sundari Debi v. Doman Sundari Debi. As stated by the learned Munsif the question is really settled by Section 21, Clause (2), Lim. Act, which lays down:

Nothing in Sections 19 and 20 renders one of several joint contractors, partners, executors or mortgagees chargeable by reason only of a writ-tea acknowledgment signed or, of a payment made by or, by the agent of, any other or others of them.

3. The case of Arjun Ram Pal supra, [1912] 14 I. C. 128 appears to have been correctly decided, the learned Judge holding that where a widow was jointly liable with her daughters for a debt, a payment by the widow did not save limitation as against the daughters or against the purchasers from them. The case of Achola Sundari Debi A.I.R. 1926 Cal. 150 does not really decide the point at issue in the present case. In that case it was merely decided that:

the expression ' person liable to pay ' in Section 20, Lim. Act, does not mean the entire body of persons liable to pay the debt but each individual debtor who would be liable for the whole debt. Under the law each co-mortgager is liable for the entire debt secured by the mortgage, and a payment by any of them towards interest would operate to extend limitation.

4. But it is not said in so many words that the period of limitation is extended against co-mortgagors by a payment made by one of them.

5. The question therefore propounded by the learned Munsif, namely: ' Does the payment of interest by a debtor save limitation against his co-debtors whose agent the payer was not ' must be answered in the negative.

Costello, J.

6. I agree.


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