The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of continuous acknowledgment of debt and the legal perspective of clerical errors in the acknowledgment of debt.

This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.03.1993 made in O.S.No.272 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem.

2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in the suit before the trial Court and the suit was filed seeking a decree based on the loan obtained by the respondent/defendant on 12.09.1974 by way of executing a promissory note, marked as Ex.A1.

3. In this appeal, it is not in dispute that the respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,500/- and executed a promissory note Ex.A1 on 19. 1974. Ex.A2 is the document of security for the loan obtained by the respondent, whereby the respondent acknowledged the hypothecation of goods in favour of the appellant on 19. 1974. The application for advance against merchandise transaction, executed by the respondent for the said debt on 19. 1974 has been marked as Ex.A3. As per Ex.A.6, the said debt was acknowledged by way of acknowledgment of debt to an extent of Rs.9,706.75/-. As per Ex.A.7, the respondent had admitted his liability to the appellant for Rs.15,780.90/-as on 7. 1980. The trial Court has given its finding that the acknowledgment of liability under Ex.A7 has not been disputed by the respondent and as such the same has been established by P.W.3 as a genuine document. Even in this appeal, the validity of Ex.A.7 has not been disputed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that Exs.A8 and A9 said to have been filed as acknowledgment of debts on 01.07.1983 and 30.06.1986 respectively have not been executed by the respondent herein. According to the respondent, he had only signed in the blank formats for some other loan, but that has been misused by the appellant bank and marked as documents in this suit. It is seen that the trial Court has framed the following issues:

.(1) Whether the statement of account produced by the appellant plaintiff is in correct?

.(2) Whether the letters of acknowledgment of liability, dated 17. 1977, 7. 1980, 07. 1983 and 30.6.1986 are genuine?

.(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for?

.(4) What relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. In the finding at paragraph No.10 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has decided the answer for issue No.1 against the plaintiff and also has stated that the issue No.2 is partly allowed in favour of the plaintiff. For the other two issues held that the appellant / plaintiff is not entitled to get any decree as prayed for. Accordingly, the suit has been dismissed with cost by the trial Court.

6. As contended by both the counsel, the appeal is mainly based on the question of validity of the documents, Exs.A8 and A.9, letters of acknowledgment of debt. It has been admitted that the respondent had obtained the loan of Rs.5,500/- on 19. 1974 from the appellant bank, as stated by the appellant herein. As per the endorsement, Ex.A.6, he has also admitted the liability on 19.07.1977 for a sum of Rs.9,706.75/-. As per Ex.A.7, dated 7. 1980, the respondent has acknowledged his liability to the extent of Rs.15780.90/-, however, he is disputing Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.9. It is seen that Exs.A8 and A9 are also similar documents, in printed forms relating to 01.07.1983 and 30.06.1986 respectively and the details have been filled in by ink. The respondent, D.W.1 has not denied his signature and the seal, which are available in Exs. A8 and A9. Ex.A.8 is an acknowledgment of debt, dated 07. 1983 and Ex.A9 dated 30.6.1986. Both the acknowledgements of debt are well within the period of limitation and if they are genuine documents, they would save the limitation of the pro-note, Ex.A.1.

.7. However, the trial Court has rejected the letter of acknowledgment of liability Ex.A.9, dated 30.06.1986, since the amount stated therein is only Rs. 21,482.55, less than the amount of Rs.24,120.75/- stated in Ex.A.8, dated 01.07.1983. It is seen that there is no correction or alteration is available in both the documents. Therefore, the only vital