Skip to content


Kalikumar Poddar Banikya Vs. Pranballav Banikya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in122Ind.Cas.294
AppellantKalikumar Poddar Banikya
RespondentPranballav Banikya
Excerpt:
deeds - alteration of date--material alteration. - .....at the time of his son's marriage. in taking down the deposition, the learned judge probably made a mistake in writing 1332 in place of 1331. but that does not appear to be material now. the principal point argued on behalf of the opposite party is that no stipulation for interest was made in the hatchitta. therefore, the sum of rs. 25 must have been paid in the part payment of the principal. that being so, limitation cannot run from the date of payment even assuming that the payment was made in jaistha, 1332, under the provisions of section 20 of the limitation act, as this fact of part payment of the principal does not appear in the handwriting of the defendant who is said to have made it. there is, however, another point and it is this: it appears from the hatahitta that the date.....
Judgment:

B.B. Ghose, J.

1. In this case, it seems that the Rule was granted on the ground that the defendant himself in his deposition stated that he paid Rs. 25 in liquidation of his debt in 1332 B.S. If the period of limitation counts from that date, the suit would be within time. The learned Judge, however, stated in his judgment that the plaintiff's son's marriage took place in Jaistha, 1331, when the sum of Rs. 25 was paid. There is nothing in the recorded evidence of the defendant to that effect. But it must have been stated by the defendant that the money was paid at the time of his son's marriage. In taking down the deposition, the learned Judge probably made a mistake in writing 1332 in place of 1331. But that does not appear to be material now. The principal point argued on behalf of the opposite party is that no stipulation for interest was made in the hatchitta. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 25 must have been paid in the part payment of the principal. That being so, limitation cannot run from the date of payment even assuming that the payment was made in Jaistha, 1332, under the provisions of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, as this fact of part payment of the principal does not appear in the handwriting of the defendant who is said to have made it. There is, however, another point and it is this: It appears from the hatahitta that the date was altered from 1331 to 1332. This is a material alteration in the document and under no circumstances can the plaintiff claim any money on the basis of this document. The Rule must, accordingly, be discharged with costs-two gold mohurs.


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