Letters admitting liability and requesting delivery of pledged shares constitute acknowledgments of liability within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

CHANDRA SEKHARA SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THE above appeal and the Memorandum of cross-objections are filed against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 58/1 o ( 1955 on the file of the Second Additional Judge "city Civil Court, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff, the Commercial and Industrial Bank Ltd. . is the appellant in this ap peal. The suit was filed to recover I. G. Rupee 5,078-0-7 equivalent to H. S. Rs. 5,927-6-0 from the defendants. The plaintiffs case is shortly as follows. The plaintiff is a limited bank The defendants dealt in shares for which they required money from time to time. They arranged for overdraft accounts in I. G. and H. S currency in the plaintiff-bank agreeing to pay interest at 6 per cent per annum on the overdraft amounts. As security for the amounts thus drawn, the defendants used to deposit shares of differed companies from time to time and also used to take back the shares by making payments. On 28-1-46, the defendants paid the balance due under the O. S, overdraft account and took a return of all the shares which were kept with them in the plaintiff-bank as security. The also executed a receipt specifying therein that all the entries made in the pass-book relating to the deposit and withdrawal of shares were cancelled. On 28-1-46, an amount of Rs. 4,129-15-3 was outstanding against the I. G. overdraft ac count which they orally promised to pay in a few days. When subsequently they were asked to pay the amount due under the I. G. overdraft account also, objection was taken on behalf of the defendants that a few shares were still in deposit with the plaintiff-bank and that the amount could not be paid unless the shares were returned. The defendants in their letter dated 6-2-46, showed their readiness to pay the amount due in respect of the I. G. overdraft account. provided the shares specified in that letter were returned by the plaintiff-bank. Again on 25-7-46, the defendants advocate wrote to the plaintiff-bank acknowledging the defendants liability. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement. He stated that the plaintiff promised to pay the defendants by way of overdraft to the extent of Rs. 50,000 on the security Sf shares. According to their necessity, the de-fendants were sometimes drawing the amounts in O. S. currency and sometimes in I. G. currency for which one O. 8. current account and one I. G. current account were maintained in the plaintiff-bank on behalf of the defendants. On 28-1-46, shares of different kinds belonging to the defendants were in deposit with the plaintiff-bank as security. But on that date, only four kinds of shares mentioned in the written statement were returned to the defendants and three items consisting of 300 shares of Taj Glass Works, 100 shares of Biochemicals and Synthetic Products Ltd. and 2 shares of Hyderabad Construction Co. , were retained by the plaintiff-bank. It was admitted that, on" that date, a sum of Rs. 4,129-15-3 was due from the defendants to the plaintiff in I. G. account. The plaintiff stated that the said amount could be paid only when the shares arc returned. The defendants, by their letter dated 6-2-46, asked the plaintiff to return the shares. The value of those sharps which the plaintiff-bank still kept with it as security for the loan is I. G. Rs. 5,175 on 28-1-46 and if this amount is given credit to, the plaintiff-bank itself will be owing to the defendants a sum of I. G. Rupees 1,585-0-9. It was also pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. The 1st defendant adopted the written statement of the 2nd defendant.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff-bank, in its rejoinder, stated that all the shares were returned to the defendants on 28-1-46 on which date an amount of Rs. 19,572-7-o was paid by the defendants and O. S. currency account was Closed. It was pleaded that, unless Gourt-fee was paid by the defendants on the amount claimed by them, their plea was inadmissible, because to the extent of that claim, it amounts to a cross-suit which, according to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document