MARISAMAPPA Vs. CHANNIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of money due on a hypothecation bond executed by one Javarayigowda, his brother who is the third defendant in the case. The first defendant is the son of Javarayigowda. Defendant 2 is the widow of Javarayigowda. Defendant 4 is another brother of Javarayigowda.

(2.) The main point for consideration is whether the suit document is barred by time. The plaintiff-appellant relies on endorsements for payment of interest made by Javarayigowda as per Ext. A-3 on the document. The thumb Impression on the document is clear and even a layman could say that the thumb impression to the endorsement very closely resembles the thumb impression affixed by Javarayigowda on the registered hypothecation deed before the Sub-Registrar. The learned Munsiff was right in holding that this endorsement is genuine. There is hardly any doubt therefore that there could be a decree as against the l/3rd interest of Javarayigowda and his son the first defendant in the suit property.

(3.) The more serious point for consideration is whether payment of interest by Javarayigowda saves limitation even as against his brothers defendants 3 and 4. It has been held in this court more than once that payment of interest by a person who happens to be a manager of the Joint family, does not necessarily mean that payment is made on behalf of the other members particularly when the other members have also executed the suit document along with the manager of the joint family. It did not, however, necessarily follow that in all casel in which payment was made by the manager of the joint family it had to be inferred that the payment was not binding on such members of the Joint family who happened to have executed the document, that is because, it may so happen that the manager of the Joint family pays money belonging to the joint family towards interest on behalf of all, and this may be so even in cases where one or more of the junior members of the family have executed the document along with him. Now at any rate whether he pays the money on behalf of all or not, he must be deemed to have made the payment on behalf of all if the liability had been incurred on behalf of the family as according to the amended S. 21, Limitation Act, Sub-section (3)(b) of Section 21 states: