The letter from the defendant constituted an unconditional promise to pay the amounts due to the plaintiff, allowing the plaintiff to rely upon it as a promise to pay a barred debt under S.25(3) of the Indian Contract Act.

1. This is an Appeal by the defendant against the decree and judgment passed against him by the learned Additional District Judge of Trichur in O. S.92/51.

2. The Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5, 500/ - on the basis of a promise stated to have been made by the defendant in a letter dated 12-2-49 and marked as Ext. C in these proceedings.

3. According to the Plaintiff, he was having arecanut business in Korancheri and in Kokkala at Trichur. The defendant was a dealer in arecaunts. During the period beginning from 15th Mithunam 1119 to 7th Karkitakam 1122 and as evidenced by the relevant day-books and ledgers kept by the Plaintiff, the defendant was having a ]ap hchv dealings in arecanut with the Plaintiff at Korancheri. According to the agreement between the parties and the practice of the trade, interest on outstandings at 9% is to be charged in respect of the transaction. After giving credit to the amounts paid by the defendant, the defendant owes in respect of the Korancheri transaction a sum of Rs. 3, 600/- inclusive of interest as on the date of suit.

4. Similarly, in respect of the dealings that the defendant had with the Plaintiff at Kokkala, Trichur, during 7th Chingom 1120 to 4th Kumbhom 1124 the defendant owed to the Plaintiff as on the date of the suit, inclusive of interest, a sum of Rs. 1, 900/-. According to the agreement and the practice obtaining at Kokkala, interest can be charged on outstandings after 7 days when they became due at 12% . The amounts due to the Plaintiff have not been paid in spite of demands and the defendant was only putting it off promising to come and settle and pay. In particular, on 12th February 1949, the defendant has written a letter promising to pay the debt claimed by the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff, even if the debt is barred by limitation, this letter of 12th February 1949 is a promise to pay the barred debt and is a fresh contract accepted by both parties. On this basis, the Plaintiff claimed the amounts with future interest.

5. The defendant, in his written-statement, contested the claim made against him by the Plaintiff. He alleged that he was having coffee and sandal wood business in Nilgiris and that he never had at any time any business in arecanut. But the defendant's brother one Mohammed Ali Sahib was having separately a business in arecanuts at Tirupur till about 1945 and the said business failed due to his financial difficulties. After 1945, even his brother had no business and there was no dealings with the Plaintiff as shown by his pattis.

6. The defendant further contended that he had nothing to do with the arecanut business that his brother had with the plaintiff. If any accounts are kept by the Plaintiff in the name of the defendant, it has been so done by the Plaintiff without either the consent or knowledge of the defendant. The defendant has never purchased any arecanuts from the Plaintiff, according to the pattis; nor has he paid any amount towards them. The defendant does not even know the Plaintiff. He knows the Plaintiff only according to the letter mentioned in the plaint and this litigation. He also disputed the right of the Plaintiff to claim any interest and also stated that the practice and agreement for payment of interest mentioned in Para.1 and 2 of the plaint are not true. There is no such practice either at Korancheri or Kokkala.

7. The defendant also contended that the even if the claim is true, it is barred by the law of limitation. Regarding the letter dated 12th February 1949, written by the defendant (Ex-C), the defendant specifically pleaded that the said letter was written by him only on the ground that if his brother owes any amounts to the plaintiff according to the proper accounts, he can ask his brother to settle up the claim. The defendant has not accepted the said letter that he himself had any dealings with the Plaintiff. The said letter is not enough to take the claim out of the bar of limitation