TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r recovery of ₹ 79,82,105.44p. against four defendants (in fact two sets of defendants) namely (i) the Assam Cooperative Marketing and Consumer Federation Limited through its Managing Director; (ii) the General Manager of the Federation (comprising the first set); (iii) the State of Assam through its Chief Secretary; and (iv) the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Supply Department (comprising the second set) respectively impleaded as defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Hereinafter, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall be referred to as the 'Federation' and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 shall be referred to as the 'State' for convenience sake. 2. According to the plaintiff, the State through its procuring agent, the Federat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the plaintiffs claim against the Federation. Several letters were exchanged. At the end, the plaintiff served a legal notice and filed the suit for recovery on 13/05/1980. 5. The defendants contested the suit. The principal defence raised in the written statement was that the suit was barred by time inasmuch as the cause of action, if any, had arisen to the plaintiff on 20/09/1976 and the suit was filed beyond three years from that date and as such was beyond the period of limitation. The defendants also expressed in the written statement a desire of pleading set-off and also of raising a counter claim but that was not done. After trying all the issues, the trial court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of ₹ 39 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 itself. In that letter defendant No. 1 admitted to have received ₹ 2 crores. Exhibits 8 and 9 are the letters given by defendant No. 1. We have filed this suit for non payment of money by defendant No. 1. There is no cross-examination directed on this part of the statement made by plaintiff. There is no suggestion given that such letters were not sent by or on behalf of the Federation to the plaintiff. 9. Both the letters Exhibits 8 and 9 are written on the letter pad of the Federation. Both bear despatch numbers. The letter dated 29 th March, 1977 has been written in response to plaintiffs D.O. No. E-l(7)/75-76/Proc./292 dated 14/03/1977. The letter dated 30 th July, 1977 (Exhibit-9) has been written in response to Plaint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Evidence Act - an entry in any public or other official record stating a fact in issue or relevant fact and made by public servant in the discharge of his official duty is itself a relevant fact. Section 39 of the Evidence Act makes a reference to any statement of which evidence is given forming part of a connected series of letters or papers. In P.C. Purushothama Keddiar v. S. Perumal, [1972]2SCR646 , the question arose as to the admissibility and relevance of certain correspondence included in the official records. The Court observed - The learned Advocate General did not support the exclusion of the last three on the ground that the copies of correspondence kept in the Collector's and taluk offices were not signed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etters were received from the Federation was not disputed by the defendant-Federation either by directing any cross-examination on that part of the statement or by making any suggestion to the contrary indicating the defendant's case as regards the said two letters. In our opinion, the documents were proved and their contents can be read in evidence. Needless to say, there is no rebuttal of the letters on the part of the defendants by way of evidence adduced in the case. 13. Once it is held that the two letters are proved then the next question which arises is as to their effect on limitation. 14. According to Section 18 of the Limitation Act, an acknowledgement of liability made in writing in respect of any right claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d where there is no admission so as to fasten liability on the maker of the statement by an involved or far-fetched process of reasoning. (See : Shapoor Freedom Mazda v. Durga Prosad Chamaria and Ors. [1962]1SCR140 and Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Etc. v. The Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. [1971]2SCR623 ). So long as the statement amounts to an admission, acknowledging the jural relationship and existence of liability, it is immaterial that the admission is accompanied by an assertion that nothing would be found due from the person making the admission or that on an account being taken something may be found due and payable to the person making the acknowledgement by the person to whom the statement is made. 16. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
