9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act based on a reply notice. 2. Claim of discharge of debt by executing a fresh promissory note. 3. Requirement of a Succession Certificate for maintainability of the suit. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this Second Appeal was whether a statement in a reply notice, Exhibit A-3, sent by the defendants to the plaintiff constituted an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act regarding a suit debt covered by a promissory note. The plaintiff, acting as Receiver, sought to recover the money due under the promissory note. The defendants argued that the suit was barred by limitation and that the acknowledgment in the reply notice was not valid under Section 19. The trial Court decreed the suit, which was confirmed by the District Judge, leading to this Second Appeal by the defendants. 2. The defendants contended that the debt was discharged by executing a fresh promissory note and that the acknowledgment in the reply notice was insufficient. They also raised the issue of the suit's maintainability without a Succession Certificate. However, the Courts found that the endorsement on the original promissory note regarding the discharge was false. The judgment emphasized the importance of a proper acknowledgment of liability for the purpose of preventing the bar of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. 3. The Court analyzed the contents of the reply notice, Exhibit A-3, and concluded that the statement mentioning the amount due and payable for the original debt constituted an acknowledgment of liability. The defendants' failure to produce a fresh promissory note supporting their claim of discharge of debt strengthened the plaintiff's case. The judgment cited legal precedents to support the view that a definite sum acknowledged could be used to save limitation only with respect to that sum. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for the acknowledged sum with interest as decreed by the lower Courts. 4. In the final decision, the Court modified the decree of the lower Courts, ruling in favor of the plaintiff based on the acknowledgment of liability found in the reply notice. The judgment concluded by stating that the plaintiff was entitled to the sum acknowledged in the notice, along with interest from a specified date. No costs were awarded, and no leave was granted for further appeal.
|
