TMI Blog1970 (10) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... btained under Ex. A. 2 dated 23-4-1135 (M. E.), a copy of the partition deed entered into between the respondent and the appellant. The suit itself was instituted on 10th October 1964 With reference to the date of promissory note, namely, 9th December 1959 certainly on 10th October 1964 the suit was barred by limitation. In order to escape from this bar of limitation, the appellant relied on the deposition of the respondent in O.S. No. 153 of 1961 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Nagarcoil, dated 24th July 1962, as constituting the acknowledgment of his liability under the suit promissory note. A copy of this deposition of the respondent has been marked as Ex. A 3. The learned Subordinate judge, who tried the suit, accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by me to my brother. Before me, the learned counsel for the appellant solely relied on these two sentences as constituting an acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. I am clearly of the view that these statements cannot constitute an acknowledgment of liability on the part of the respondent herein. Section 19(1) of the Limitation Act, 1908, provides:-- Where, before the expiration of the period prescribed for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by some person through whom her derives title or liability, a fresh period of limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 153 of 1961 on the file of the court of the District Munsif of Nagarcoil. Ex. A.3. Ex. A.4 is the postal receipt for the notice sent to the respondent by the appellant and Ex. A.5 is the notice sent to the respondent and returned refused. Exs. A.4 and A.5 and dated 1-10-1964 cannot throw any light on the nature of the acknowledgment contained in Ex. A. 3. Equally Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 also cannot throw any light on the nature of the acknowledgment contained in Ex. A.3. Thus, in this case, there was no evidence of any surrounding circumstance with reference to which an acknowledgment of subsisting liability can be implied or inferred from the acknowledgment of execution of Ex. A.1. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant very strongly rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor, and it must appear that the statement is made with the intention to admit such jural relationship. Such intention can be inferred by implication from the nature of the admission, and need not be expressed in words. If the statement is fairly clear then the intention to admit jural relationship may be implied from it. The admission in question need not be express but must be made in circumstances and in words from which the court can reasonably infer that the person making the admission intended to refer to a subsisting liability as at the date of the statement. In construing words used in the statement made in writing on which a plea of acknowl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f liability for the obvious reason that there is no acknowledgment of a subsisting liability....................... In all such cases, the test is whether there is, on the terms of the acknowledgment, either an express or implied statement indicating an intention to continue the pre-existing jural relationship until that is lawfully determined. If that test is applied, certainly in the present case, from the two sentences which I have extracted above, no intention top continue the pre-existing jural relationship or an intention to admit a subsisting liability can be inferred. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant wanted to rely upon certain other decisions to support his contention. However, the Supreme Court in [1962]1SCR140 alre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Section 19 of the Limitation Act. It is this mistake committed by the learned Subordinate Judge that was pointed out by the learned District Judge and he came to the conclusion that the statement of the respondent contained in Ex. A. 3 cannot constitute an admission of subsisting liability. 8. The learned Subordinate Judge further assumed that since at the time when the respondent gave evidence in O.S. No. 153 of 1961 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Nagarcoil, the promissory note was not barred by limitation and the respondent had not stated in his evidence that he was denying his liability or pleading discharge, he must be deemed to have admitted the liability. I am of the view that this assumption also is unwarr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
