1980 (12) TMI 199 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the balance sheet dated 8-8-1965 and letters dated 16-9-1965 and 17-9-1965 serve as acknowledgments of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
3. The liability of the defendant No. 4 as a guarantor.
4. Calculation of the interest amount and the total amount due.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the balance sheet dated 8-8-1965 and letters dated 16-9-1965 and 17-9-1965 serve as acknowledgments of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963:

The balance sheet dated 8-8-1965 showed a sum of Rs. 5,34,786 due from the defendant firm to the plaintiff. The court held that the balance sheet, signed by all partners, including the accountant's endorsement, served as an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The court noted that the acknowledgment need not be addressed to the creditor, as per Explanation (a) to Section 18, and can be addressed to another person. This acknowledgment was sufficient to extend the limitation period.

Regarding the letter dated 16-9-1965, the court found it to be a clear acknowledgment of the debt, confirming the balance due as Rs. 5,34,786 as on 31-7-1965. This letter extended the limitation period by another three years from 16-9-1965.

The letter dated 17-9-1965, which mentioned crediting Rs. 10,400 in the plaintiff's account, was also considered. The court interpreted this letter as acknowledging the existence of an account between the parties, implying a jural relationship of debtor and creditor. This acknowledgment extended the limitation period, making the suit filed on 17-9-1968 within time.

2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation:

The primary defense of the defendants was that the suit was barred by limitation. The court held that the acknowledgment in the balance sheet dated 8-8-1965 and the letters dated 16-9-1965 and 17-9-1965 extended the limitation period. Thus, the suit filed on 17-9-1968 was within the extended limitation period, and therefore, not barred by time.

3. The liability of the defendant No. 4 as a guarantor:

The court upheld the trial court's finding that defendant No. 4 was not liable as a guarantor. The plaintiff did not press the appeal against defendant No. 4, and the appeal against her was dismissed without any order as to costs.

4. Calculation of the interest amount and the total amount due:

The trial court had calculated the interest amount as Rs. 71,705 on the principal amount of Rs. 2,62,086, whereas the plaintiff claimed Rs. 87,714 as interest. The appellate court found the trial court's calculation of interest incorrect and accepted the plaintiff's calculation of Rs. 81,750.10 as the correct interest amount. The court also rejected the trial court's further deduction of interest on account of Durgaprasad Shreeram's share, as the plaintiff had already deducted his share from the suit claim.

Conclusion:

The appellate court allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs. 3,43,794 with costs and future interest at 4% per annum from the date of the suit till realization. The appeal against defendant No. 4 was dismissed without costs. The acknowledgment in the balance sheet and letters served to extend the limitation period, making the suit timely.