SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1879 Supreme(Cal) 99

PRINSEP, MORRIS
Mungol Prashad Dichit – Appellant
Versus
Shama Kanto Lahory Chowdhry – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Morris, J. - Several questions have been raised, arising out of proceedings taken between the last and the next preceding application for execution, that is, between the 5th September 1874 and the 22nd September 1877. But the determination of these is unnecessary if, as has been pointed out, the decree which it is sought to execute was dead on the 5th September 1874 by reason of the previous application having been made on the 26th July 1871. It is, however, pointed out that the respondent, debtor, made an acknowledgment of the judgment-debt on the 30th November 1871, when he asked for two months' postponement of the sale in execution. And a contention is raised that this is such an acknowledgment in writing of the debt as is contemplated in Section 20, Act IX of 1871, and that, consequently, a new period of limitation runs from the date on which it is signed. The application for execution made on the 5th September 1874 brings this case under the provisions of Act IX of 1871 (see Section 4 of that Act). This being so, the acknowledgment in writing of the judgment-debt, dated the 30th November 1871, is not sufficient to save limitation. A consideration of the terms of Act IX

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top