9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (3) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tallments of ₹ 25/-. Defendant No.1 was alleged to have executed the bond (Exh. 18) to that effect. It was alleged that respondent No.2, original defendant No.2, stood surety for defendant No. 1. Plaintiff further averred that after the execution of the bond, defendant No.1 repaid in all ₹ 75/- only and therefore, on September 27, 1967, he issued a notice to the defendants to pay the balance. To this notice, defendant No.1 gave a reply on 11-12-1967 acknowledging his liability. It was, however, stated that neither of the defendants paid the balance. Plaintiff therefore instituted the present suit on the small cause side for recovery of ₹ 625/- as principal and ₹ 112/- on account of interest. 3. Defendant No.1 admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid decree passed by the trial Court. 5. There is no substance in plaintiff's contention that defendant No.2 had stood surety for defendant No.1 to repay the debt. The bond (Exh. 18) clearly shows that defendant No.2 had signed it as an attesting witness and not as a surety. The dismissal of plaintiff's claim against defendant No.2 has, therefore, to be upheld. 6. The next question that arises for considerations whether the view taken by the trial Court that the reply, Exh. 22, does not amount to an acknowledgment of debt and hence installments that fell due prior to February 1966 were barred by limitation is correct. On going through the reply dated 11-12-1967 at Exh. 22, it is difficult to agree with the trial Court. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned in an acknowledgment. 7. In Megh Raj v. Mathura Das, ILR (1913) All 437, it has been observed that a liberal construction should be placed upon documents purporting to be acknowledgments. It is sufficient if the statement on which a plea of acknowledgment is based relates to a present subsisting liability though the exact nature or the specific character of the said liability is not indicated in words. All that is necessary is that the words used in acknowledgment must indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor, and it must appear that the statement is made with the intention to admit such jural relationship. Such intention can be inferred by implication from the nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the present acknowledgment, it is clear that defendant No.1 has in unambiguous and unequivocal terms admitted his subsisting liability to pay the balance of the debt after deducting whatever amounts were paid by him. Now defendant No.1 contended that he had paid ₹ 400/-; he was able to establish that he had repaid only ₹ 100/-. It is, therefore, clear that after deducting this payment, whatever remained due has been acknowledged by defendant No.1. In the circumstances, in my view, the reply at Exh. 22 clearly contains an acknowledgment of subsisting liability to pay whatever balance that remained due after deducting the payments already made. If that be so, then all the 12 installments which have been held by the trial Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
