Perera V. Perera Et Al.,

 

1941     Present: Soertsz and Hearne JJ.

 

PERERA v. PERERA  et al

195-D.C. Chilaw, 11,273,

 

Prescription-Admission of debt by administrator in administrative proceed­ings-No acknowledgment of debt-Payment of debt by one co-debtor- No interruption of prescription against the others-Prescription Ordinance (Cap. 55), s. 12.

 

The admission of a debt by an administrator in administration proceedings does not amount to an acknowledgment as would serve to take the case out of the operation of the Prescription Ordinance.

 

Where on the death of a debtor each of the adiating heirs becomes liable for the debt pro rata, part payment of the debt by one such heir does not interrupt prescriptions as regards the others.

 

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Chilaw.

 

H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him J. R. Jayawardana and Dodwell Gunawardana), for the plaintiff, appellant.

 

N. E. Weerasooria, K.C. (with him H. Wanigatunga), for the defendants, respondents.

 

Cur. adv. vult.

 

February 27, 1941. SOERTSZ J.-

 

The plaintiff-appellant brought this action to recover from the defendants-respondents a sum of Rs. 3,000 together with interest at 12 per centum per annum from July 7, 1938.

 

Her case was that she had lent one G. G. Perera a sum of Rs. 4;000 in the year 1938, that he had promised to repay to her this sum on demand with interest at the rate of 12 per centum per annum ; that he had paid her Rs. 1,000 out of the principal and all the interest due up to May 10, 1935, that is, up to the date of his death; that the defendants who are his brothers and sisters " have adiated his estate, and are now in possession of the property left by the said G. G. Perera ".

 

It is clear from the averments that the plaintiff bases the liability of the defendants to be sued for this debt on the fact that they are heirs in possession of the estate of the deceased debtor. The defendants while admitting that they are the only heirs of the deceased and that they have adiated his estate and are now in possession of it, put the plaintiff to the proof of the loan, and also plead that her claim is barred by the Prescription Ordinance.

 

In regard to the plea of prescription, the action was instituted on July 7, 1938, more than three years after the last payment of interest alleged to have been made by the debtor, but the plaintiff seeks to save her claim from the statute by virtue of certain payments which she alleged the third defendant made to her on account of interest-the last of these payments is said to have been made on November 21, 1936; and also by virtue of the fact that the first defendant who is the administrator of the estate of the deceased debtor, showed this debt as a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document