Suit in India for foreign contract.

These appeals are from the judgment of Veeraswami, J., reversing the concurring judgments and decrees of the Courts below and dismissing the suit instituted by the appellant for recovery of moneys due under certain transactions to be referred to hereafter.

The respondents are of Indian domicile and they form members of a joint Hindu family with their home in Ramanathapuram District. They had a business at Ohne in Pegu District in Burma and in respect of two sums of Rs. 10,000 each borrowed from the appellants in the above appeals, they, through the first respondent who was the kartha of the family executed on 25th October, 1937, two mortgages securing certain immovable properties belonging to them and situate in that country. The mortgage documents were duly registered in accordance with the law of Burma and they were kept alive by periodical acknowledgments made by the manager for the time being of the family. Such acknowledgments were made on 28th May, 1940, 12th June, 1941, 31st March, 1947 and 28th August, 1949. Due to the unsettled conditions in that country consequent on the Japanese invasion the Civil Courts were deemed to be closed under the Burma Emergency Act XI of 1943 from 8th December, 1941 to 1st March, 1947. That apart, the acknowledgments to which we have made reference just now would be sufficient under the law which prevailed in that country to keep alive the debts incurred by the mortgages. There can, therefore, be little doubt that the liability of the respondents to pay back the amounts borrowed was alive and enforceable, under the law of Burma On 30th August, 1955.

On that date the appellants instituted two suits out of which these appeals arise claiming that the respondents were personally liable to pay the amounts in this country. The debts were no doubt in origin secured over the properties situate in Burma. It is conceded that the debts were payable at that place and that the cause of action also arose therein.

The creditors have now given up their security and they have sought personal relief against the respondents in a Court in this country within the limits of whose jurisdiction the debtors reside or carry on business. This, they will be entitled to do — Vide the decision, Muthukanni v. Andappa1.

The sole ground on which the suits were contested related to limitation. It will be noticed that more than three years had elapsed between the second and the third acknowledgments of liability referred to above. So also between the date of the last of the acknowledgments and the date on which the suit was filed even, if one were to exclude the period between 5th December, 1943 and 1st July, 1955, on the ground that the respondents are agriculturists in this State. If, therefore, the debt had become barred by 12th June, 1944 or by 1952 by applying the three year rule of limitation contained in Article 115 of the Limitation Act, subsequent acknowledgment on 31st March, 1947, or any suspension of cause of action by a statute will not have the effect of reviving the debt.

To get over the difficulty the appellants pleaded that as the claim was based on registered instruments of mortgages executed in Burma, Article 116 of the Limitation Act would apply and that that would entitle them to a six-year period of limitation. Alternatively it was urged that section 13 of the Limitation Act will save the claim from the bar of limitation.

The Courts below holding that the appropriate provision of the Limitation Act applicable would be Article 116 decreed the suit claim. That view has not been accepted by Veeraswami, J., in Second Appeal. The learned Judge held that the claim could not be regarded as being based on a registered instrument as the document of mortgage was not registered in this country and that, therefore, the proper article to be applied to the case would be Article 115 of the Limitation Act.

It is a well accepted rule of international law that all matters of procedure will be governed