9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed by judgment dated 8.2.2007. Hence, this second appeal. 2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows: The plaintiff advanced a sum of ₹ 2,25,000/- to the 1st defendant during May 1977 without executing any document. The 1st defendant postponed the repayment of the said amount for a long time and ultimately on the intervention of the elders and well-wishers, the 1st defendant executed an agreement dated 10.12.2000 agreeing to repay the amount due within six months; in default, he would handover his house bearing No. 1-9-559 to the plaintiff as per the market value prevailing as on 10.6.2001. The first defendant though did not make the payment within the time agreed, issued a cheque dated 30.6.2001 drawn on Vija ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether the plaintiff advanced ₹ 2,25,000/- during May, 1997 to defendant No. 1? (2) Whether defendant No. 1 executed agreement on 10.12.2000 acknowledging his liability of ₹ 2,25,000/- and agreeing to repay the same within six months and in default agreed to handover House No. 1-9-559 to the plaintiff? (3) Whether defendant No. l issued cheque dated 30.6.2001 for ₹ 2,25,000/- in favour of plaintiff? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount as claimed? (5) To what relief? 5. Before the trial Court, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs. A1 to All documents were marked to substantiate the suit claim. The 1st defendant got himself examined as D.W. 1 and Exs. B1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nforced through Court of law. The learned Counsel while submitting that the trial Court committed a grave error in not framing a specific issue with regard to the question of limitation and that both the Courts below failed to consider the crucial fact that Ex. A1 acknowledgment by the 1st defendant was made beyond the period of limitation, contended that the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff was a nullity and liable to be set aside on that ground alone. In support of his contentions the learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the decisions in Tilak Ram and Ors. v. Nathu and Ors. and Esakki Palpu and Ors. v. Cherian Kochan and Ors. A.I.R. 1976 Mad. 142 8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability 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 derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. .... 10. While interpreting the scope and object of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (corresponding to Section 19 under the repealed Limitation Act, 1908), the Supreme Court in Tilak Ram's case (supra), held as under: (7) The section requires (i) an admission or acknowledgment (ii) that such acknowledgment must be in respect of a liability in respect of a property or right, (iii) that it must be made before the expiry of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he parties under which there is an express promise to pay the time barred debt, the suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation. 12. Section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872 runs as under: 25. Agreement without consideration, void, unless it is in writing and registered, or is a promise to compensate for something done, or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law: An agreement made without consideration is void, unless- (1).... (2).... (3) It is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorized in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
