9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (11) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the suit promissory note. Before the plaintiff took action on this promissory note as Receiver, on 20th January, 1955 he called upon the defendants under Exhibit A-2 to pay the amount due and payable under the promissory note, and the defendants replied on 10th February, 1955 by Exhibit A-3 stating that the amount due on the promissory note was discharged by executing a fresh promissory note on 20th January, 1954 in favour of the plaintiff, settling the amount payable under the promissory note at ₹ 2,550 and that there was also an endorsement to that effect on the back of the original promissory note. It has as a matter of fact been found by both the Courts below that this endorsement is a false one. Subsequently, due to dissensions i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edgment of liability as is sufficient for that purpose. Mr. Ismail, the learned advocate for the appellants, argued that the statement in the reply notice would never amount to an acknowledgment in law. It was contended by him that it was merely a narration of the origin of the debt and that that would not amount to an acknowledgment of the liability of the debt due and payable on the existing promissory note. He cited the decision in Appasami v. Morangam (1934) 58 M.L.J. 73 : A.I.R. 1935 Mad 371 in support of his contention, where it was held that if there is a bare recital of a past debt, it cannot be construed as an admission of a subsisting liability. But Venkatasubba Rao, J., himself has observed in that decision that The question in e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry note. 6. In any event, the learned advocate for the appellants contends, the plaintiff-respondent would not be entitled to claim more than the amount mentioned in the reply notice, viz, ₹ 2,550, and in support of his contention, he cited Bans Gopal v. Mewa Ram A.I.R. 1930 All. 461 where it was held that where a definite sum has been acknowledged, the acknowledgment an be used to save limitation only with respect to the sum acknowledged. I agree. The result would be that the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree for the sum mentioned in the reply notice, Exhibit A-3, viz., ₹ 2,550 with interest as decreed by the Courts below from 2nd January, 1954. 7. In the result, the decree of the lower Courts is modified as above. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
