9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (5) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the respondent for the period March 1960 to December. 1968 on a monthly rent of ₹ 3/-. The respondent opposed the suit claim and contended that the claim was barred by limitation and secondly that two payments of ₹ 30/- made by him had not been given credit to. In support of his claim the plaintiff placed reliance on a letter Ex. P-1 executed by the respondent on 2-11-1968. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that Exhibit P-1 can keep alive the rent claimed by the plaintiff only for a period of three years prior to the date of its execution and in that view he held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover arrears of rent from the respondent only from the month of October, 1965 onwards and rejected the plaintiff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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. (2) ....." From this it is quite clear that if a debtor makes an acknowledgment of his liability and the subsistence of the claim before the expiration of the prescribed period, then a fresh period of limitation is made available to the creditor from the time when the acknowledgment is made. However, in this case, the contention of the plaintiff is that by the execution of Exhibit P-1 the respondent has obligated himself under a fresh contract and such obligation is enforceable by the plaintiff irrespective of the fact whether the debt or liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is therefore rendered clear that Ex. P-1 forms the basis of a fresh contract between the respondent and the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to base that as the cause of action and institute a suit against the respondent for recovery of the amount undertaken to be paid by the respondent by and under the terms of Ex. P-1. The question as to whether any portion of the sum of ₹ 312/- acknowledged to be paid by the respondent under Exhibit P-1 to the plaintiff in monthly instalment of ₹ 10/- was barred by limitation or not on the date of the execution of Ex. P-1 has no relevancy or significance and is a factor which has to be totally eschewed from consideration. It is to cases of this kind that Section 25(3) of the Indian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fails to institute the action within the time allowed to him by law, the debtor sets a vested right and is afforded opportunity to resist the action of the plaintiff on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation. However, it is equally open to the debtor to renounce or waive the right conferred on him by the Law of Limitation and bind or obligate himself afresh to discharge the debt incurred by him irrespective of the fact the debt had become barred by limitation on the date he gives the fresh undertaking to the creditor to pay off the debt. The principle is now well known that a person may renounce a benefit of law made for his own protection. 4. Inasmuch as Section 25 clearly lays down that all the cases referred to in Sub-clauses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso lays down : "The conditions necessary to constitute a promise within Section 25(3) are that it should be made in writing: be signed by the person to be charged therewith; and be a promise 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. The clause does not require that in the writing itself the consideration should be described as past debt, when in fact it was such past debt and was known to the debtor as such." David Sutherland. Clark v. Rose Grimshaw. 73 Ind Cas 652 : AIR 1923 Lah 481 holds a written promise to pay a barred debt is not a bond within the meaning of the Stamp Act and is not required by any of the provisions of the Act to be stam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act in the eye of law and can certainly be made the basis of an action for recovering the amount promised and acknowledged therein by the debtor. While Section 18 of the Limitation Act (Section 19 of the old Act) deals with an acknowledgment made by a debtor within the period of limitation, the contractual obligation which a debtor enters into under the terms of Section 25(3) has no reference whatsoever to the acknowledged debt being within time or not. In that sense, the provision contained in Section 25(3) is far wider in scope than the acknowledgment contemplated in Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The contract entered into under Section 25(3) is an independent and enforceable contract and has no reference to the debt acknowledged under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
