Back
1915 Supreme(Cal) 28
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Teunon, J., Fletcher, J.
Har Prosad Dass alias Dewan Dass - Appellant
Versus
Bakshi Bindeswari Prosad Singh alias Lalluji & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 15-04-1915
Headnote:
Acknowledgment - Debt - Limitation Act - Section 19, 20, 21 - [Section 19, Section 20, Section 21] - The court discussed the legal framework surrounding acknowledgment of debt under the Limitation Act, particularly Sections 19, 20, and 21. It analyzed the power of an agent, specifically a karta of a joint Hindu family, to acknowledge a debt on behalf of a minor member. The court relied on the Full Bench case of Chinnaya v. Gurunatham Chetti and the statutory provision in Section 21 to conclude that the karta's acknowledgment was valid and binding on the minor.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sued to recover suras due from the defendants. The first defendant, as karta of a joint Hindu family, executed promissory notes in favor of the plaintiff after the death of his brother, the second defendant's father. The plaintiff sought to recover the amount due on these notes, including a renewed note for Rs. 7,720-2-9 given by the first defendant in lieu of an earlier note for Rs. 6,000 executed by the deceased brother.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first defendant's five notes were likely for his personal use and not for the benefit of the minor. However, regarding the renewed note for Rs. 7,720-2-9, the court held that the first defendant, as karta, had the power to acknowledge the debt secured by the original note for Rs. 6,000, thus preventing it from being barred by limitation. The court considered the acknowledgment sufficient and binding on the minor, despite the lack of explicit mention of the karta's capacity in the acknowledgment.
Issues: The main issues were: (1) Whether the first defendant, as karta, had the power to acknowledge the debt secured by the original note for Rs. 6,000, and (2) Whether the acknowledgment was sufficient to bind the minor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the karta, as an agent duly authorized under Sections 19 and 20 of the Limitation Act, had the power to acknowledge the debt on behalf of the minor, as long as the debt was not barred by limitation at the time of acknowledgment. The court relied on the Full Bench case of Chinnaya v. Gurunatham Chetti and the statutory provision in Section 21 of the Limitation Act to support its conclusion. The court also found that the acknowledgment was sufficient, despite the lack of explicit mention of the karta's capacity, as it was clear from the documents that the renewed note was given in lieu of the original note.
Final Decision: The court set aside the lower court's judgment in relation to the liability of the minor under the promissory note for Rs. 7,720-2-9 and held that the minor was liable along with the first defendant to pay that amount out of his share of the joint family property. The rest of the lower court's decree was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Fletcher, J. - This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Shahabad, dated the 9th September 1912. The plaintiff sued to recover certain suras that were alleged to be due to him from the defendants. The first defendant, Bakshi Harihar Prosad Singh, had a brother, Bakshi Sheo Prosad Singh. In the year 1907 Sheo Prosad Singh died leaving the second defendant, his only son. In his life-time, Sheo Prosad had executed certain promissory notes and, on the 30th April 1906, he executed a fresh hand-note for Rs, 6,000 in favour of the plaintiff in lieu of all the notes that had been executed by him down to that date. On the 22nd November 1906, Sheo Prosad executed a further hand-note for the sum of Rs. 1,000. Sheo Prosad was the karta of this joint Hindu family and the defendant No. 2, his infant son, was a member of that family which was undivided at all times material for the purposes of the present case. On the death of Sheo Prosad, the first defendant succeeded to the office of the karta and be executed five promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff, two being dated the 5th April 1908 and the 12th November 1908 respectively, each of them being for Rs. 1,000, another one dated the 26th December 1908 for Rs. 300 and the two remaining ones being dated the 28th April 1909 and the 15th May 1909, the first one being for Rs. 1,400 and the last one being for Rs. 1,0-00. Harihar Prosad Singh, the first defendant, also on the 30th April 1909, renewed the hand-note for Rs. 6,000 which had been given by Sheo Prosad Singh by giving a note for Rs. 7,720-2-9. On the original note there was endorsed executed another hand-note in its stead of the value of Rs. 7,720-2-9' up to date," and it was signed by the defendant No. 1. Default having been made in paying the amount covered by these notes as well as the note for Rs. 1,000 executed by Sheo Prosad on the 22nd November 1906, the plaintiff brought the present suit. The learned Judge of the Court below has given a decree to the plaintiff against the defendant No. 1 alone for the whole amount sued for, except the Rs. 1,000 covered by the hand-note dated the 22nd November 1906. He has dismissed the suit as against the defendant No. 2. The plaintiff has appealed against that decision.
2. It will be convenient to deal with the five notes that were given by the defendant No. 1 himself after the death of Sheo Prosad in the first place, and then to deal with the renewed note for Rs. 7,720-2-9 that was given by the defendant No. 1 in renewal of the note for Rs. 6,000 executed by Sheo Prosad. No argument was advanced before us as regards the amount covered by the note dated the 22nd November 1906 executed by Sheo Prosad Singh, the claim as regards that being evidently barred' by limitation.
3. The learned Judge has made this finding with reference to the five notes that were given by the defendant No. 1 himself: There is nothing to show that the moneys were borrowed for family purposes or for the benefit of the minor. On the other hand, there is evidence adduced by the defendant No. 2 to show that the defendant No. 1 has been leading an extravagant and dissipated life, which renders it highly probable that he borrowed the moneys for his own personal use." The evidence on which the learned Judge came to that conclusion is ample to warrant the conclusion that he came to. The evidence is not very much one way or the other, but it seems to me that, on these five notes, the evidence is not sufficient to establish the liability of the infant, that is the defendant No. 2, with respect to the moneys so advanced. I think, with regard to the amounts due on those five notes, we ought to affirm the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge.
4. The case on the note for Rs. 7.720-2-9 is not so easy. The first point that was objected to was that the learned Judge of the Court below admitted a copy of this note in evidence and also copies of the notes in respect of which i
