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

2004 Supreme(Mad) 439

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN
V.S.Manickasundaram - Appellant
Versus
V.S.Ramalinga Gounder & Co.& Others - Respondents
L.P.A.No.146 of 2000
Decided On : 16 March 2004

Advocates Appeared:For The Petitioner:K.Surendranath, Advocate. For The Respondents: R5 to 9 V.K.Muthusamy, Senior Counsel., No Appearance for R1., R3 died., R4 not ready in notice.

If endorsement regarding payment of interest is made then it is an acknowledgement of liability.

Headnote:Limitation Act, 1963-Section 18-Period of limitation-Computation of-For the acknowledgement of liability endorsement made on promissory note-Endorsement regarding payment of interest whether can be treated acknowledgement of liability-Held, Inspite of non-payment of money if an endorsement is made to the effect, limitation is extended holding it an acknowledgement.

Judgment :-

K.Govindarajan, J.

The plaintiff who failed in his attempt to get a decree to realise the amount on promissory notes under Exs.A1 to A4 and A13 to A16, filed the above Appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.312/1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Erode against defendants/respondents to recover a sum of Rs.81,280/- with interest on the basis that the defendants have executed Exs.A1 to A4 and A13 to A16, the promissory notes. The plaintiff is the assignee of the said promissory notes.

3. The defendants contested the suit contending inter alia that the suit promissory notes were not executed, that the same were discharged, that they are barred by limitation and that the plaintiff is not the holder indue course of the said promissory notes.

4. The trial court found that the said promissory notes were executed and enforceable against the defendants, that they had been discharged, that the suit is barred by limitation and that the plaintiff as the assignee cannot be treated as a holder in due course. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.421/1985. The learned Judge, in the judgment dated 7.9.1999 held that the suit transaction covered under Exs.A1 to A4 and A13 to A16 are not discharged by the defendants and the plaintiff is a holder in due course of the same. But while considering the question whether the suit is barred by limitation, the learned Judge found that it is barred by limitation and on that basis the suit was dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the learned Judge found that the suit is barred by limitation only on the basis that on the date of making endorsement on 3.8.1979, no amount was paid and the same reflects the earlier payment and so the appellant/plaintiff cannot rely on Sec.19 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963, hereinafter called 'the Act 1963'. According to the learned counsel, the said finding of the learned Judge cannot be sustained in view of Sec.18 of the Act 1963. According to him, even if the amounts are not paid and if endorsement is made, the period of limitation will be extended on such endorsement and so the learned Judge is not correct in holding that the suit is barred by limitation. He also relied on the decisions in Thesiga Aiyangar v. Srinivasa Mudaliar (10 M.L.J. 25), S.F.Mazda v. DurgaPrasad (AIR 1961 S.C. 1236) and in L.M.L.L.Lakshmanan Chettiar v. V.A.R.Alagappa Chettiar (AIR 1981 Mad.338).

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submitted that since the appellant/plaintiff has come forward with the plea that the endorsement was made after making payment of interest, the said endorsement cannot be relied on to extend limitation, as the appellant has not established the payment of interest. Referring to Order 7 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the appellant has to specifically plead the grounds upon which the exemption from law of limitation is claimed. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel also relied on the decisions in Sant Lal v. Kamla Prasad ( AIR 1951 S.C.477), M/s.Wazir Sultan & Sons v. P.S.Rao (AIR 1959 Mad. 195) and in Dastur, B.K., v. R.Rajaram, (99 L.W. 859).

7. The point for consideration in this Appeal is whether the suit filed by the plaintiff to recover the monies from the defendants on the basis of the promissory notes Exs.A1 toA4 and A13 to A16 is barred by limitation?

8. In view of the finding of the learned single Judge that endorsement was made on 3.8.1979, though the appellant/plaintiff has not established the payment on the said date, we have to proceed with the case to decide the issue raised before us on the basis of the said finding.

9. It is no doubt true that in the promissory notes it is stated that @ 3/8/79k; njjp ,e;j gpuhkprhp nehl;Lf;F Vw;fdnt xU khj tl;o brYj;jp tut[ itf;fg;gl;lJ/@

Though the learned counsel had taken us through the evidence, in sup




















































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