Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Cornish, J.
Magham Chinna Subbaroyudu and Ors.
Versus
Vangala Narasimha Reddi and Anr.
Decided On : 13.08.1936
Limitation Act - Acknowledgment - Summary: The court discussed the requirements for an acknowledgment within Section 19 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that it does not necessarily need to contain a promise to pay. The court also clarified that an acknowledgment of the correctness of an account does not always require a stamp to be valid, depending on whether it falls within the Stamp Act. The decision was influenced by the interpretation of previous cases and the specific facts presented in the evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed that the dealings were with defendants 1 and 2, but admitted in cross-examination that defendant 1 alone received the money and that the account stood only in his name. There was no evidence that the dealings related to the joint family of defendants 1 and 2.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dealings were in fact only with defendant 1, and defendant 2 could not sign in acknowledgment of defendant 1's liability without evidence of authorization.
Issues: Interpretation of acknowledgment within Section 19 of the Limitation Act, validity of acknowledgment of correctness of an account, and determination of liability in the specific dealings.
Ratio Decidendi: The acknowledgment within Section 19 of the Limitation Act does not necessarily require a promise to pay, and the validity of acknowledgment of correctness of an account depends on whether it falls within the Stamp Act. Liability in specific dealings requires evidence of authorization.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed with costs.
Cornish, J.
1. I do not agree with the Munsif that an acknowledgment within Section 19, Limitation Act, must contain a promise to pay or amount to a promise to pay. That view is contrary to Peri Ramasami v. Chandra Kottayya 1925 47 MLJ 840. Nor do I agree with the Munsif that an acknowledgment of the correctness of an account requires a stamp to be valid. It depends on whether the acknowledgment is one within the Stamp Act; and I think the reasons given in Nagappa Chetty v. V.A.A.R. Firm AIR1925Mad1215 , that an acknowledgment which is merely intended to acknowledge the correctness of an account is not one requiring a stamp, are applicable to the acknowledgment in this case. But I think that the lower Courts decision can be supported on the facts given in the evidence. Plaintiff said that the dealings were with defendants 1 and 2, but in cross-examination he admitted that defendant 1 alone received the money paid in those dealings and that the account stood only in his name. There is also no evidence that the dealings in question related to the joint family of defendants 1 and 2. On this material I think that the dealings were in fact dealings only with defendant 1, and it would follow that defendant 2 could not sign in acknowledgment of defendant 1s liability thereon, unless he was duly authorised to do so. Of that there is no evidence. The civil revision petition must therefore, be dismissed with costs.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
