9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 18 of the Limitation Act regarding the validity of an acknowledgement in a money suit based on liability acknowledgements not in the handwriting of the defendant. Analysis: The judgment delivered by Justice Padmanabhan of the Kerala High Court addressed the interpretation of Section 18 of the Limitation Act in a civil revision petition involving a money suit. The key issue was whether an acknowledgement, to be valid, must be in the handwriting of the defendant against whom the property or right is claimed. The court emphasized that an acknowledgement under Section 18 must pertain to an existing debt or obligation, be in writing, signed by the person against whom the right is claimed, or by someone through whom they derive liability, and made before the expiry of the limitation period. The court clarified that an acknowledgement only renews the existing liability and does not create a new cause of action or title. In this case, the plaintiff bank sued two defendants based on a liability incurred on a specific date. The suit relied on two acknowledgements dated after the liability date. The trial court dismissed the suit solely on the ground that the second acknowledgement was not in the handwriting of the defendant, despite being signed by him. The High Court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that Section 18 only requires the acknowledgement to be in writing and signed, without specifying that it must be in the maker's handwriting. The court highlighted that various modes of signing, including thumb impressions or marks, are recognized in law for illiterate or physically unable persons. The court criticized the trial court's narrow interpretation, emphasizing that acknowledgements can take various forms, including printed, typewritten, or even made by a witness in a deposition. The High Court noted that the trial court's failure to consider other issues in the case was a significant oversight, as a decision on limitation is subject to review, and a final disposal requires consideration of all issues. Consequently, the High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the judgment and decree, vacated the limitation finding, and remanded the case for a comprehensive review of all issues and a final disposal on the merits, emphasizing the importance of addressing all issues in a proceeding to avoid unnecessary delays and inconveniences.
|
