Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J
Mr.R.G.Selvanarayanan – Appellant
Versus
Mr.R.N.Krishnakumar – Respondent
Appeal Suit No.393 of 2022 | C.M.P.No.15295 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.Jeyachandran
For the Respondents: Mr.M.Selvaraj.
Acknowledgment of debt to save limitation must come from the debtor or an authorized representative; reliance on self-serving entries is insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 96 - Claim for recovery in construction contract - Plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.13,30,637/- from defendant for construction work, trial Court dismissed suit as barred by limitation; Plaintiff claims acknowledged debt, defendant denies authorization of manager - Court held that acknowledgment not valid as it lacks authorized signature. Findings indicate reliance on inaccurate documents and self-serving evidence by the plaintiff. (Paras 13, 21, 22)
(B) Limitation - Court found that acknowledgment of debt must be from debtor or authorized representative, entries made by plaintiff's manager not sufficient to save limitation. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, an architect, claimed balance payment for incomplete construction work against defendant. Plaintiff filed suit after previous complaints against defendant; defendant countered with claims of incomplete work and late payments. The trial Court allowed recovery based on disputed documents.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court erred in relying on self-serving documents for acknowledgment of debt, ultimately finding the suit was barred by limitation.
Issues: Whether the suit is barred by limitation? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery based on acknowledged debt?
Ratio Decidendi: Acknowledgment must be genuine and made by debtor or authorized representative; reliance on self-serving documents without proper authorization invalidates claims for recovery.
Result: Appeal allowed, trial Court's decree set aside and suit dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeal and trial court's judgment. (Para 1 , 2) |
J U D G M E N T
The appellant in A.S.No.393 of 2022 is the defendant in O.S.No.177 of 2014 on the file of the 1st Additional District court, Coimbatore.
2. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.13,30,637/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., which is the alleged balance due and payable by the defendant in the construction contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The suit was allowed by the trial Court vide judgement dated 11.06.2019. Hence, this appeal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as “Plaintiff”
and “defendant.”
4 . T he case of the plaintiff/ Respondent:-
The plaintiff, R.N.Krishnakumar, is the proprietor of M/s.N.S.K.Associates, Coimbatore. He is an Architect and builder by profession. The defendant approached the plaintiff for the construction of a godown main building with a plinth area of 12,445 sq.ft. On being satisfied with the plaintiff's work, the defendant also entrusted the construction work of Security shed, Labour Quarters, Ramp, Compound wall, Land Level Water Tank, Front platform and Borewell along with fittings as additional work. The plaintiff gave quotation for the said works and it was mutually agreed that the final payment will be decided on completion of the work.
5. As per the written agreement dated 20.03.2009, the time for completion of the work was one month. In case, the contractor (plaintiff) failed to complete the work within one month, the defendant was entitled to withhold 10% of the building cost. While so, after completion of 95% of the work, the defendant, without any valid reason, denied the plaintiff entry to the work site and stopped further the construction activities. The defendant is preventing the plaintiff from removing construction materials and equipments worth about Rs.8 lakhs, lying in the construction site.
6. The cost of the construction carried out by the plaintiff is worth Rs.72,69,900/-. So far, the defendant has paid only Rs.61,12,149/-. The defendant is liable to pay a balance sum of Rs.11,57,751/-. In this regard, the plaintiff lodged a criminal complaint against the defendant on 09/10/2009. The said complaint was closed in view of consumer complaint in C.C.No.367/2009 filed by the defendant against the plaintiff before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Coimbatore. Later, the consumer complaint C.C.No.367/2009 filed by the defendant was dismissed with costs. Thereafter, on 19.01.2011, the plaintiff caused a comprehensive legal notice to the plaintiff, calling upon him to (i) permit the plaintiff to remove the construction materials and equipments worth Rs.8 lakhs lying in the premises of the defendant and (ii) to pay the balance construction cost of Rs.11,57,751/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
7. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.323 of 2012 for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to return back the construction materials and equipments lying in the construction site of the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant came forward to return the materials and agreed to pay the balance amount in four instalments. He paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 23.03.2013 as the first instalment and acknowledged the debt and making part payment. Based on this assurance, the plaintiff agreed to withdraw O.S.No.323/2012 on receipt of the balance payment. However, the defendant did not pay the balance payments as agreed. Hence, the plaintiff did not withdraw the suit in O.S.No.323/2012. Finally, the said suit, after trial, was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 02.01.2014. The present suit has been filed for recovery of the balance construction costs.
8. Case of the Defendant/Appellant:-
The defendant contested the suit, stating that there is no amount is due payable to the plaintiff towards the cost of construction. In fact, the plaintiff failed to complete the work within the time prescribed. Hence, the defendant was
