9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation. 2. The applicability of Act XVI of 1942 to save limitation under Section 20, Limitation Act. 3. The effect of the amending Act of 1942 on debts already barred before its enactment. 4. Interpretation of previous judgments in relation to the retrospective operation of the amending Act. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff filed a suit to enforce a mortgage dated 5th June 1909, with payment endorsements on the mortgage bond in question. The crucial point of contention revolves around the interpretation of an endorsement dated 29th July 1932, which the appellant argues should be considered an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19, Limitation Act. The court, however, held that the endorsement does not imply an admission of further dues, as the term "sellu vaithadu" means "paid and endorsed," not "paid towards a debt." Consequently, the suit was deemed barred by limitation. 2. The appellant sought to rely on Act XVI of 1942 to save the suit from limitation under Section 20, Limitation Act. The amendment aimed to address the ineffectiveness of "open payments" to save limitation. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the amended law cannot be invoked to resurrect a time-barred claim unless expressly stated in the amending Act. Citing various precedents, the court highlighted that the right of action must not have been extinguished under the previous law for the amending Act to apply retrospectively. 3. The court delved into the impact of the amending Act of 1942 on debts already barred before its enactment. It clarified that while the Act could interrupt the running of time retrospectively, it cannot revive debts already time-barred under the old law. Precedents were cited to support the view that a remedy barred under the old law cannot be revived solely by a new enactment unless explicitly provided for in the later law. 4. Lastly, the court addressed the interpretation of previous judgments in light of the retrospective operation of the amending Act. It distinguished cases where debts became unenforceable before the new Act came into force, emphasizing that the amendment cannot retroactively revive a time-barred claim. The court relied on decisions of the High Court to dismiss the appeal, emphasizing the principle that a time-barred claim cannot be enforced under the new law unless expressly permitted. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, following the decisions of the High Court over conflicting judgments from the Patna High Court, emphasizing the strict application of limitation laws and the inability to revive time-barred claims without explicit statutory provisions.
|
