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

1955 Supreme(Raj) 83

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
DAVE, MODI, JJ.
Shivdayal
Versus
Ramrikh
Second Appeal No.10 of 1951
Decided On : 14-03-1955

Advocates:
B.K. Acharya, for Appellant; Chandmal, for Respondents.

A plea of waiver must be properly pleaded and proved. A mere acceptance of payment does not amount to a waiver.

Headnote:

LIMITATION - Instalment bond - Default clause - Waiver - Pleading and proof - Amendment of plaint - Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 74, 75.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for Rs.10,000/- on the basis of a bond dated 25-5-1934 executed by defendants' parents for an amount of Rs. 5700/- which were found outstanding against them on the date of its execution. The said amount was payable in 57 annual instalments beginning from Samwat year 1991 and ending in Samwat year 2047. The defendants denied the execution of the document sued upon, and pleaded that they, had no knowledge if it was executed by their parents. They raised several other objections including that of limitation.

Finding of the Court:

The trial Court found that the document Ex.P.1 was executed by Basti and Bakhta but the suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The Court came to the conclusion that the bond contained a default clause whereby the entire amount of the bond became payable on default of payment on the due date on which an instalment was to be paid. It also came to the conclusion that only five instalments were proved to have been paid to the plaintiff and the payments of sixth and seventh instalments were not proved. According to that Court, the payment of the sixth instalment was due on 14-1-1940 and since waiver was not proved by the plaintiff, the period of limitation for the entire amount commenced from that date. The period of limitation prescribed in money suits by the Law of Limitation prevailing in Bikaner was six years. The Suit in the present case was brought on 4-1-1947. The last date, according to the trial Court, on which the suit should have been filed was 13-1-1946 and, therefore, the claim was held to be time barred.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs claim was filed within the period of limitation. 2. Whether an amendment can be allowed at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The plea of waiver involves a mixed question of law and fact because unless certain facts are established, it is not possible to make an inference about waiver. It is, therefore, necessary that the plaintiff who wants to take advantage of such a plea must show in his plaint in a concise form those material facts which, if proved, would go to show that he had waived his right accruing out of the default clause. 2. A mere acceptance of payment does not amount to a waiver. There should be some overt act on the part of the creditor, communicated to the debtor, by which a Court of fact can conclude that the creditor has waived the benefit. 3. In the present case, the plaintiff did not show in the plaint that such and such payment was made by the defendant towards a particular instalment whose payment was overdue. The plaintiff did not also express in his statement in the tnal Court that he had accepted particular payment towards a particular instalment. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the respondents had made their payments towards particular instalments and that the appellant was waiving his right every time.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgement

DAVE, J.:-

This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Ganga-nagar, dated, 9-4-1951.

2. The facts giving rise to it are that the plaintiff-appellant brought a money suit for Rs.10,000/- in the Court of District Judge, Ganga-nagar on 4-1-1947 on the basis of a bond dated 25-5-1934 which is marked Ex.P.1. It was averred by him that Basti, who was father of defendants 1, 2, and 3 (Ramrikh Ganesha and Sureta) and Bakhta, who was father of defendants 4 to 7 (Panna, Parsa, Moola and Sheodayal) had executed the said document in his favour for an amount of Rs. 5700/- which were found outstanding against them on the date of its execution. The said amount was payable in 57 annual instalments beginning from Samwat year 1991 and ending in Samwat year 2047. Then it was stated that the defendants had paid the instalments from Samwat 1991 to Samwat 1997 and that they stopped payment thereafter. In this manner only Rs.700/-were paid and the principal) amount of Rs.5000/-still remained unpaid. According to the plaintiff, he was entitled to get interest at 12 per cent per annum according to the terms of the bond and, therefore, he added Rs. 5000/- for interest up to the date of the suit and prayed that a decree for Rs.10,000/- be passed against the defendants.

3. The defendants denied the execution of the document sued upon, and pleaded that they, had no knowledge if it was executed by their parents. They raised several other objections including that of limitation. The trial Court thereupon framed seven issues. It was found by that Court that the document Ex.P.1 was executed by Basti and Bakhta but the suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The Court came to the conclusion that the bond contained a default clause whereby the entire amount of the bond became payable on default of payment on the due date on which an instalment was to be paid. It also came to the conclusion that only five instalments were proved to have been paid to the plaintiff and the payments of sixth and seventh instalments were not proved. According to that Court, the payment of the sixth instalment was due on 14-1-1940 and since waiver was not proved by the plaintiff, the period of limitation for the entire amount commenced from that date. The period of limitation prescribed in money suits by the Law of Limitation prevailing in Bikaner was six years. The Suit in the present case was brought on 4-1-1947. The last date, according to the trial Court, on which the suit should have been filed was 13-1-1946 and, therefore, the claim was held to be time barred. It may be mentioned here that although the suit was originally filed in the Court of District Judge, Ganganagar, the case was decided by the Sub-Judge, Suratgarh because of the change of jurisdiction, of the Courts and it was dismissed by that Court on 26-8-1949.

4. The plaintiff went in appeal to the Court of District Judge, Ganga-nagar but with no success. Hence this second appeal.

5. The first question for determination before this Court is whether the plaintiffs claim was filed within the period of limitation. Learned Counsel for appellant has urged that if this Court also finds that the suit was time-barred, then he should be permitted to amend the plaint and, therefore, the next question to be decided is whether an amendment can be allowed at this stage.

6. In order to understand the arguments raised by the appellants learned advocate, it seems proper to set out the relevant portion (regarding the terms) of the bond on which the suit is founded. After saying that Basti and Bakhta were liable to pay Rs.5700/- to the plaintiff, it is written therein that they agreed to pay the said amount by annual instalments of Rs.100/- without any interest from Lohri of Samwat 1991 Vikrami to Lohri of Samwat 2047. It was further agreed that if the instalments were not paid annually on the date, then in case of that default, the creditor would be entitled to realise interest f













































































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 Back to top