Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VADAMALAI
S.R.Gopala Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
G.Nagarajan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P. Vadamalai, J.
This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 21.03.2022, made in A.S.No.59 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 27.02.2018, passed in O.S.No.952 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai.
2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.952 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money from the appellant/defendant.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in O.S.No.952 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai.
4. Case of the plaintiff:
The plaintiff and the defendant are relatives. The defendant was doing jewellery business. The defendant obtained loan of Rs.1,90,000/- on 01.09.2002 and another loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on 05.12.2002 from the plaintiff. The defendant acknowledged the same in a stamped pocket notebook. The defendant also borrowed a total sum of Rs.17,20,000/- on various dates from family members of the plaintiff. The defendant paid monthly interest for total loan of Rs.3,40,000/- upto 200
The acknowledgment of debt for limitation purposes must be explicit, written, and made before the expiration of the limitation period; mere disputes do not suffice.
The court established that the limitation period for recovery of loans starts from the date of the loan agreement, with the first day excluded in the computation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit filed beyond the limitation period as per Article 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for seeking recovery of a loan where no time period....
An acknowledgment of debt must be in writing and signed to extend the limitation period; unsigned entries are legally insufficient.
Acknowledgment of a debt in writing interrupts the limitation period allowing a fresh period from the acknowledgment date, making the suit valid despite initial time lapse.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a promise made in writing and signed to pay a time-barred debt is valid and enforceable under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act.
(1) Preliminary issue – When issues of both law and facts arise in same suit, Court may dispose suit by trying issue of law first.(2) Money suit – Issue as to whether claim of appellant is barred by ....
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
