The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to determine the validity of acknowledgements in a money transaction dispute.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 011. 1996 made in O.S.No.76/1994 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam. The defendant in the suit is the appellant herein.

2. The first respondent herein had instituted the above said original suit against the appellant herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- towards the principal and interest upto the date of the suit along with subsequent interest on the basis of his contention that the appellant herein/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-from the respondent herein/plaintiff in April 1989 to meet the expenses of the marriage of his son and daughter proposed to be arranged shortly thereafter.

3. It was the further contention of the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff that, as the marriage of Janaki, daughter of the appellant herein/defendant with the son of the 1st respondent/plaintiff had been fixed and the appellant herein/defendant proposed to arrange for the marriage of his son also, he wanted the above said financial assistance from the 1st respondent/plaintiff promising to repay the same with interest and that the respondent/plaintiff, taking into account the fact the appellant/defendant was going to be the father-in-law of the son of the first respondent/plaintiff, obliged and made payment as requested by the appellant herein/defendant. It is the further case of the respondent/plaintiff that since the matrimony between the above said Janaki (daughter of the appellant/defendant) and the son of the first respondent/plaintiff did not last long and it broke down within a couple of months after their marriage and the said Janaki went to the extent of giving a complaint in the police station at Nagapattinam alleging commission of offences under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the family members of the 1st respondent/plaintiff, the 1st respondent/plaintiff had to demand repayment of the amount lent by him to the appellant/defendant; that the appellant/defendant on the other hand tried to set up a false case as if the said amount was paid for purchasing the house of the appellant/defendant and subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff retracting from the said commitment refused to purchase the property and insisted upon repayment of the amount; that the appellant/defendant also made attempts to sell the property in order to defeat the claim of the 1st respondent/plaintiff and that in such circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to cause a notice to be issued by his son through a lawyer and an advertisement in the newspaper informing the public that they should not purchase the property before ever the claim of the 1st respondent/plaintiff could be settled and filed a suit for the recovery of the above said amount when a reply containing false allegations was received from the appellant/defendant.

4. According to the plaint averments, even though the amount was lent in the month of April 1989, the appellant/defendant made acknowledgements in writing on 15.03.1991 at the first instance, on 03.07.1991 at the second instance, on 110. 1993 and 212. 1993 respectively on the third and fourth instances and in view of the said acknowledgements limitations started afresh on each occasion when such acknowledgement was made and hence the suit was not barred by limitation.

5. The suit was resisted by the appellant/defendant by putting in a written statement containing the following allegations:

The appellant/defendant never admitted that he borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-from the 1st respondent/plaintiff and the admission made by him was to the effect that only a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was received by him from the 1st respondent/plaintiff. It was the 1st respondent/plaintiff, who approached the appellant/ defendant with a proposal for the marriage of the son of the plaintiff with the daughter of the defendant. As the appellant/defendant did not have funds for arranging the marriage, he informed the 1st respondent/plainti