Skip to content


Debi Prosad Vs. Ram Ghulam Sahu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Cal186(2),25Ind.Cas.89
AppellantDebi Prosad
RespondentRam Ghulam Sahu and ors.
Cases Referred and Ramaswami Pillai v. Kuppuswami Pillai
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 64 - sorkhol--entry of balance--debt barrel--no promise to pay--account stated--contract act (ix of 1872), section 25. - .....rs. 130. cash rupees twenty-five, rs. 25. former cash rs. 105, or total rs. 130.debit--nil.2. the suit was decreed and the defendant has obtained from this court a rule on the opposite party to show cause why the decree should not be modified on the ground that a portion of the claim is barred by limitation. we are informed that out of the entry of 'rs. 105 former cash' in the sorkhol sums aggregating to rs. 54-4 were advanced on or before the 22nd april 1909 and were, therefore, barred on the 4th october 1912, the date of the sorkhol. it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the suit as regards this amount of rs. 54-4 is barred by limitation. a number of decisions has been shown to us out of which we may cite shankar v. mukta 22 b. 513, govind das v. sarju das 30 a. 268 : 5 a.l.t......
Judgment:

1. This was a suit on a document called sorkhol which ran as follows: 'Interest at the rate of Re.' 1 per cent. Sd. Debi Prosad of Maharajgunj. By my own pen.

Lekha (account) of Ram Ghulam Sahu and Naubat Rasu Kulwar of Maharajgunj, Sambat 1969.

Credit--credited on the 8th Assin Badi, Sd. Debi Ram Rs. 130. Cash rupees twenty-five, Rs. 25. Former cash Rs. 105, or total Rs. 130.

Debit--Nil.

2. The suit was decreed and the defendant has obtained from this Court a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why the decree should not be modified on the ground that a portion of the claim is barred by limitation. We are informed that out of the entry of 'Rs. 105 former cash' in the sorkhol sums aggregating to Rs. 54-4 were advanced on or before the 22nd April 1909 and were, therefore, barred on the 4th October 1912, the date of the sorkhol. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the suit as regards this amount of Rs. 54-4 is barred by limitation. A number of decisions has been shown to us out of which we may cite Shankar v. Mukta 22 B. 513, Govind Das v. Sarju Das 30 A. 268 : 5 A.L.T. 274 : A.W.N. (1908) 129 and Ramaswami Pillai v. Kuppuswami Pillai 7 Ind. Cas. 901 : 8 M.L.T. 282 : 20 M.L.J. 630 : (1910) M.W.N. 547. They all support the petitioner's plea.

3. On the other hand, it has been argued that the case may be regarded as one coming within the scope of Article 64 of the first Schedule of the Limitation Act. That Article refers to money due on accounts stated between the parties. The sorkhol, however, as described above does not appear to us to be an account stated but merely a balance. A perusal of the document shows that there is no promise to pay within the meaning of Section 25 of the Contract Act.

4. The Rule is made absolute and the principal sum decreed is reduced by Rs. 54-4.


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