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

1956 Supreme(Mad) 239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Govinda Menon and Ramaswami, JJ
Ramagopal Naicker
Versus
Muthukrishna Ayyar
S.A. No. 1102 of 1953.
Decided On : 20 July 1956

Advocates:
C. A. Vaidialingam (The Government Pleader) and T. V. Venkatadri for Appellants.
S. V. Venugopalachari and K. R. Rama Ayyar for Respondents.

Limitation saved by acknowledgment of liability by official receiver.

Headnote:Limitation Act 1908-Section 19 - Acknowledgment of liability by the Official Receiver would save the limitation.

       

Order of Reference.-This appeal raises an interesting question of limitation. The suit was on a simple mortgage executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff, Exhibit A-3, dated 25th April, 1927, for a sum of Rs. 500. The amount was payable in instalments and the final instalment was payable on 25th April, 1930. The suit was instituted on the 30th of September, 1948. The second defendant is the purchaser of the suit property from the Official Receiver. Since the first defendant was adjudged insolvent in I.P. No. 9 of 1935 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Koilpatti, the property became vested in the Official Receiver, Tirunelveli Reliance was placed on Exhibit A-5, dated 23rd December, 1940, a certified copy of the sale deed in I.P. No. 5 of 1936 executed by the Official Receiver, in favour of the second defendant, wherein it appears that the Official Receiver has stated that the sale was subject to the mortgage under Exhibit A-3. If this amounts to an acknowledgement of liability under section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, the suit would be within time. In Currimbhai v. Ahmedalli1, Sir John Beaumount, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Blackwell took the view that the Official Assignee was not the duly authorised agent of the insolvent to give acknowledgment of a liability in respect of a debt due by the insolvent. Relying on this decision the learned District Munsif dismissed the suit which dismissal was confirmed in appeal.

Mr. Venkatadri for the appellant brings to my notice a bench decision of our High Court in Paramasivan v. Chokona2, where in an application to sell the insolvent’s property, the Official Receiver had furnished particulars regarding the encumbrances existing on the property. It was held by Oldfield and Philips, JJ., that the admission of the debt in that application was sufficient acknowledgment of the liability within the meaning of section 19 of the Limitation Act. The Judgment of Sir John Beamount, C.J., and Blackwell, J., in Currimbhai v. Ahmedalli1, does not refer to this Madras case2. In view of the language of section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, it is for consideration whether the Official Receiver could be considered to be the duly authorised agent of the insolvent and whether he could be held to be a person against whom such property or right is claimed or some person through whom he derives title or liability within the meaning of the section notwithstanding that the insolvent’s property might vest in the Official Receiver under section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. It will, therefore, be better to have this appeal disposed of by a bench or a full bench as the Honourable the Chief Justice may decide. The papers may be placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice for orders as to posting the appeal before a bench.

In pursuance of the order of reference the Appeal came on for hearing before the bench consisting of Govinda Menon and Ramaswami, JJ.

C. A. Vaidialingam (Government Pleader) and T. V. Venkatadri for Appellants.

S. V. Venugopalachari and K. P. Rama Ayyar for Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Govinda Menon, J.-The order of reference to the bench by Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., is sufficiently detailed as regards the facts of the case and no useful purpose will be served by our restating them once again. As stated by the learned Judge the question is whether an acknowledgment by an Official Receiver would be sufficient to prolong the period during which claim subsists. That there is an acknowledgement in writing of an existing debt cannot be disputed in view of Exhibit A-5 if it is admissible in which the Official Receiver has explicitly stated that the sale would be subject to the mortgage under Exhibit A-3.

But the question is whether it would be an acknowledgment of a liability under section 19 of the Limitation Act, paragraph 1, which lays down that if an acknowledgment of liability in respect of a property or a right has been made in wr




















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
whatsapp-icon Back to top