9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Suit based on acknowledgment executed after the period of limitation - Suit barred by limitation under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act - Allegation of illegal consideration for part of the amount - Reopening of transactions under the Usurious Loans Act Analysis: 1. The defendants appealed against a decree granting the full claim of the plaintiff, based on an acknowledgment executed after the limitation period had expired for the previous acknowledgment. The appellants argued that the suit was barred by limitation as it did not meet the requirements of Section 25(3) of the Contract Act. Other contentions included the illegality of part of the consideration and the request to reopen transactions under the Usurious Loans Act. The lower courts ruled against the appellants on these points. 2. The respondent's counsel attempted to divert the limitation issue by claiming that the suit was saved by Section 6 of the Limitation Act due to the plaintiff being a minor. However, this argument was not raised in the trial court or the lower appellate court. The court emphasized that a litigant must expressly claim and prove any exceptional rule, as failing to do so does not impose a duty on the court to protect their interest. The court cited precedents to support this stance. 3. The acknowledgment in question was executed after the previous acknowledgment, but the lower courts relied on a precedent to save limitation by considering the closure of courts for vacation. However, subsequent judgments clarified that Section 4 of the Limitation Act does not apply to computing periods under Section 19. The court agreed with these clarifications and held that the previous ruling was not valid. 4. The court assessed whether the suit was founded on a mere acknowledgment and whether there was consideration for it. An agreement without consideration is void unless it falls under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act. Precedents were cited to support the view that an implied promise to pay in acknowledgments does not attract Section 25(3) if not in writing. 5. The court examined the wording of the acknowledgment and compared it to previous cases to determine if there was consideration for the implied promise to pay. It was argued that there was no novation of the contract, as claimed by the respondent, based on the evidence presented. The court found that the plaintiff's case was primarily founded on the acknowledgment and not on novation. 6. The court concluded that the appeal must succeed as the suit was based on a mere acknowledgment and was barred by limitation. Therefore, it was unnecessary to consider other points raised regarding the nature of the transaction or the Usurious Loans Act. The lower appellate court's decree was set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs throughout.
|
