H K DASAPPA SETTY Vs. VEDAVATHAMMA VEDAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court and respondent 1 to 3 were defendants 1 to 3 in the trial Court. The plaintiff filed a suit on 18-12-1963 to recover a sum of Rs 1570 due under three promissory notes executed by late K. R. Shama Rao, husband of defendant 1, and father of defendants 2 and 3 The case of the plaintiff was that Shama Rao, for his family necessity borrowed different amounts under the three promissory notes Exts P1 to P3, Shama Rao died on 26-5-1959 leaving the defendants as his legal representatives under the managership of the 1st defendant. At various times, defendants 1 and 2 wrote to the plaintiff promising to settle his dues as per Exte P4 to P9 and the various acknowledgments made by defendants 1 and 2, save limitation. As the defendants failed to pay the amount due, the plaintiff filed the suit, pravine for a decree against the assets of Shama Rac in the hands of the defendants.

(2.) The defendants stated that they were not aware of Shama Rao borrowing the said amounts under the three promissory notes and put the plaintiff to strict proof of the same. Thev also denied that thev had acknowledged their liability to pay the suit debts As the plaintiff was threatening the defendants statins that some amounts were due to him by Shama Rao, the 2nd defendant might have written some letter stating that if any amount was due on verification he would pav the same under the law. They contended that in any case the debts were barred by time and prayed that the suit may be dismissed.

(3.) The trial Court held that Shama Rao had executed the three suit promissory notes and they were supported by consideration. It also held that the defendants had acknowledged their liability to pay the suit amount and that the suit was in time and decreed the suit of the plaintiff The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and held that the suit was not in time It held that defendant 1. the widow of Shama Rao, could not act as the manager of the family and had no power to acknowledge the debts and Ext P5, the post card dt 25-6-1959 written by her did not extend the time Tt further held that Exts P-6 to P9 writ ten bv defendant 2 were acknowledgments made after the period of limitation had expired and as such the suit was barred by time The learned Civil Judge held that Ext P4, the application made by defendant 2 dated 25-12-1960 to the Land Mortgage Rank, was too vague and would not amount to an acknowledgment of debt and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as barred by time In this second appeal the plaintiff challenges the the said decree and judgment passed by the lower appellate Court