Key Points: - The four debts were held time-barred due to lack of evidence that payments were verified and signed by the debtor or her agent, as required under Section 20 proviso of the Limitation Act (!) . - The Rs. 18,000 debt was not time-barred because the last payment on 14/09/1950 falls within the limitation period, and the Board’s handling of evidence and debtor examination impacts this finding (!) . - The Board erred in not allowing the creditor to prove certain letters acknowledging the debt and in not examining the debtor; the matter is remanded to apply Sections 28 and 35, determine if the debt is barred by limitation, and consider scaling down after assessing paying capacity (!) (!) . - The cross-objections and the scope of Civil Procedure Code provisions under Section 51 are addressed, allowing admissibility of objections under Order 41, Rule 22 in this appellate context (!) . - The matter is remanded to the Board for further consideration, including whether to apply Section 28, Section 35, and to determine paying capacity and potential scaling down, with costs to abide by the result (!) .

How to determine which debts are time-barred under the Jagirdar Debt Settlement Act in light of Section 20 proviso and evidence of payment verification?

How to apply Sections 28 and 35 of the Jagirdar Debt Settlement Act to compute debt, assess paying capacity, and consider scaling down after remand?

What are the proper procedures for admissibility of documents and examination of the debtor on remand, including acknowledgment and payment evidence?