9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore March 31,1974. Part of it only was collected and removed by him before February 21,1974, When unfortunately fire broke out in the reserved forest which destroyed also the remaining forest produce of the Respondent's coupe. The Respondent made representations to the Forest Department seeking reduction of the bid amount on the ground that his coupe was destroyed by the wild fire. On June 27, 1974, the Government of Kerala instead of reducing the bid amount thought it fit to grant further time of forty five days to enable him to remove the forest produce. The Respondent neither paid the balance of the bid amount nor removed the forest produce in his coupe. On September 19, 1974, the Divisional Forest Officer intimated to the Respondent that as he failed to satisfy the conditions of the contract and remit the amount due to the Government, it was cancelled and the produce left on the site was confiscated and ordered to be auctioned at the risk and loss of the Respondent. 4. The Respondent, thereafter, issued noticed under Section 80 of the CPC to the Appellant claiming the amount of compensation which included refund of the bid amount and filed the suit as indigent person o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the date of the failure of consideration upon which the money was paid. The bid amount was paid by the Respondent for forest produce which had failed on destruction of forest produce due to spread of the wild fire. The date of failure would, therefore, be the date of fire, which is February 21,1974. The suit was filed on July 28, 1977. It is clearly barred by limitation unless, as pleaded by the Respondent, there is acknowledgement of the liability by the Appellant in Exhibits B-4 and A-8 and, therefor, the period starts from the date of the acknowledgement of the liability i.e from September 19,1974. 8. Now, we shall advert to Section 18 of the Limitation Act which speaks of the effect of acknowledgement in writing and it reads as follows: 18. Effect of acknowledgement in writing. (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he de rives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v) it is coupled with a claim to set off; or (v) It is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right. Clause (b) of the explanation defines the word signed' to mean signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in that behalf. 10. It may be noted that for treating a writing signed by the party as an acknowledgement, the person acknowledging must be conscious of his liability and the commitment should be made towards that liability. It need not be specific but if necessary facts which constitute the liability are admitted an acknowledgement may be inferred from such an admission. 11. Here it is necessary to refer to the said documents - Exhibits B-4 and A-8. The trial court as well as the High Court accepted the plea of the Respondent and held that the period of limitation would start from September 19,1974 (Exhibit A8) and the suit was within limitation. Both the court relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Courts in Harrisons Crossfield Ltd. v. State of Kerala 63 K.L. T. 215. It is laid down therein that it was not necessary that there should be a specific and direct acknowledgement of the particular liability which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n per cent) and the claim of the Respondent for recovery of the bid amount was not under its consideration. 13. Exhibit A-8 is a copy of the proceedings of the Divisional Forest Officer intimating to the Respondent that as he failed to remit the balance of the bid amount and did not remove the forest produce in terms of the order of the Government, Exhibit B-4, the unresolved forest produce was confiscated and would be auctioned at the risk and loss of the Respondent. On a careful reading of this letter we are unable to find that the claim of refund of bid amount by the Respondent was the subject of consideration nor can we infer any acknowledgement of liability of that claim by the concerned authority. 14. We have also support for our view from the decision of this Court in Shapoor Fredoom Mazda v. Durga Prasad Chamaria and Ors. MANU/SC/0254/1961MANU/SC/0254/1961 : [1962]1SCR140 . While interpreting Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 this Court pointed out the essentials of acknowledgement thereunder and observed that acknowledgement as prescribed by Section 19 was a mere acknowledgement of the liability in respect of the right in question and that it need not be accompa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
