GOPALA MANNADIAR Vs. TULASI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. Plaintiff's suit on the strength of a promissory note was decreed by the Trial Court and reversed by the lower appellate court. The promissory note is alleged to have been executed by the 1st defendant and his deceased wife Kaliyammal Koundachi in favour of the plaintiff. Kaliyammal Koundachi's legal heirs are the other defendants. Defendants 1 and 6 filed written statement supporting the suit claim. Defendants 2 to 5 filed written statement denying the execution of the promissory note. Besides Ext. A2 acknowledgment plaintiff relied on the endorsement in Ext. A1 promissory note to save limitation. The Trial Court held that the evidence regarding the endorsement has not been satisfactorily proved. Despite that finding the Trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of the averment in Ext. A2 Will executed by Kaliammal Koundachi acknowledging the promissory note. The finding that the endorsement in the pronote has not been satisfactorily proved has become final as the plaintiff did not file any cross objection when the contesting defendants filed AS 80 of 1980 before the Sub-Court, Palghat. The Sub-Judge held that the recitals in Ext. A2 will not save limitation and accordingly dismissed the suit.

(2.) Whether the recitals in Ext. A2 of the liability under Ext. A1 pronote will amount to acknowledgement to save the period of limitation is the moot point to be considered. The term acknowledgment in S.18 of the Limitation Act connotes:

(3.) The promissory note is dated 5-2-1973. As there is acknowledgment evidenced by Ext. A2 before the expiry of the period of limitation to institute the suit the Sub Judge was not justified in dismissing the suit. The judgment and decree of the Sub Judge are set aside. Second appeal is allowed with costs throughout. Judgment and decree of the Trial Court stand confirmed.