Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

K. Ganapathy Versus Vaidyalingam

1970 (10) TMI 76 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Second Appeal No. 266 of 1967 - Dated:- 22-10-1970 - M.M. Ismail, J. JUDGMENT M.M. Ismail, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 39 of 1964 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Nagarcoil is the appellant before this court. The appellant and respondent are brothers and admittedly the respondent executed the suit promissory note, namely, Ex. A. 1 dated 9th December 1959 in favour of the appellant for ₹ 4,000 repayable with interest at 9 per cent. per annum from the date of the prom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on, 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 the case of the appellant and held that the statement contained in Ex. A 3 constituted an acknowledgment of liability .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ated by me above, it will be clear that this appeals within a very narrow compass, the only question for decision being whether the statement relied on in the deposition of the respondent as contained in Ex. A. 3 can be said to constitute an acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908. 3. O.S. No. 153 of 1961 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif at Nagarcoil itself was a suit instituted by the appellant's daughter against the respondent for recovery of certain sums .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng 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 su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eaning that the party acknowledges execution of an instrument but denies his liability thereunder, or contends that the liability which he has undertaken under the document has been already fulfilled or discharged. A mere acknowledgment of the execution of a document need not necessarily mean an acknowledgment of liability thereunder. An acknowledgment of execution of a document may constitute only a statement of fact as to what had happened in the past, without in any way indicating the admissi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

promissory note itself, Ex. A.1; a copy of the partition deed, Ex. A.2; and a copy of the deposition of the respondent in O.S. 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

held that an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 need not be express but may be implied from the circumstances under which the statement was made. As I have pointed out already, in the present case except relying upon the two sentences in Ex. A-3 and the partition deed, Ex. A-2, no other surrounding circumstance has been placed before the Courts below from which an irresistible inference of admission of a subsisting liability under Ex. A-3 can be drawn. I repeat that a mere acknowledgme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the right in question; it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication. The statement on which a plea of acknowledgment is based must relate to a present subsisting liability though the exact nature or the specific character of the said liability may not be indicated in words. Words used in the acknowledgment must, however, indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor, and it must appear that the state .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y as at the date of the statement. In construing words used in the statement made in writing on which a plea of acknowledgment rests oral evidence has been expressly excluded but surrounding circumstances can always be considered. Stated Generally courts lean in favour of a liberal construction of such statements thought it does not mean that where no admission is made one should be inferred, or where a statement was made clearly without intending to admit the existence of jural relationship suc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

omanlal Mohanlal Bros AIR1963Mad403 and in that case this court pointed out: "An acknowledgment need not contain a promise to pay either in express terms or even in an implied way; what is necessary is that there should be an admission of the subsisting liability. (Italics are mine). Even if such admission is accompanied by a refusal to pay, its character as an acknowledgment will not be altered. But such a case has got to be distinguished from a case of repudiation of liability. For exampl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nly 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 already referred to, has stated- "The effect of the words used in a particular document must inevitably depend upon the context in whi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

use he was of the view that the respondent having admitted the execution of Ex. A.1 in the deposition given by him, it was for him subsequently to plead discharge or want of consideration. In so stating the learned subordinate Judge failed to note that the deposition was in some other suit and the acknowledgment of the execution of the document was not in the present suit itself. Even then, the acknowledgment of the execution of the document in itself will not throw the burden on the executant, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version