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

1940 Supreme(Mad) 138

HORWILL
C. K. Kunjandi – Appellant
Versus
Kuduvayoor Nagarathil Melharath Kadir Moideen Rowthens son Chinnavava Rowthen – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horwill, J.

1. The second defendant is the mother of defendants 3 to 5. The husband-of the second defendant, the father of defendants 3 to 5, and the first defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Within the period of limitation, after the death of the second defendants husband, first defendant made a payment. This suit was brought within three years of that payment but more than three years from the execution of the note. The first defendant was clearly liable; but the more difficult question was whether defendants 2 to 5 were liable also or whether the suit was barred as against them. That point was decided in favour of the defendants 2 to 5 by the Subordinate Judge of Palghat.

2. There can be no doubt that it is well established in this High Court that any acknowledgment made under Section 19 by one person does not save limitation against any other persons liable under the note, whereas a payment made under Section 20 saves limitation as against all those liable under the note. I am unable to see any great difference in the wording of Sections 19 and 20 which would account for this difference in the law applying to acknowledgments and pay





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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top