KAPALEESWARAR TEMPLE Vs. T. TIRUNAVUKARASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in suit No. 3118 of 1969 on the file of the Third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, who was the applicant in N. T. A. No. 82 of 1971 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff, viz., Sri Kapaleeswarar Temple by Chairman, Board of trustees, filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 324 being the arrears of rent due from the respondent for the period March 1960 to December, 1968 on a monthly rent of Rs. 3/ -. The respondent opposed the suit claim and contended that the claim was barred by limitation and secondly that two payments of Rs. 30/ - made by him had not been given credit to. In support of his claim the plaintiff placed reliance on a letter Ex. P -1 executed by the respondent on 2 -11 -1968. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that Exhibit P -1 can keep alive the rent claimed by the plaintiff only for a period of three years prior to the date of its execution and in that view he held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover arrears of rent from the respondent only from the month of October, 1965 onwards and rejected the plaintiff's claim for rent for the period prior to October 1969 as barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the limited relief given to him in the suit, the plaintiff preferred New Trial Application No. 82 of 1971. The Bench which considered this application took the view that unless the debt itself was alive on the date of acknowledgment, the acknowledgment made by the debtor would not have the effect of keeping alive a time -barred debt, and in that, view the Bench held that Ex. P -1 cannot save limitation to the plaintiff for any period prior to three years of its execution. It is to assail this finding of the Bench that the plaintiff has preferred this revision.

(2.) I am clearly of the opinion that the trial Judge as well as the New Trial Bench have committed a grievous error in their approach to the claim made by the plaintiff in the suit. Both the lower Courts have considered the case of the plaintiff only with reference to the provision contained in Section 18 of the Limitation Act and have totally failed to consider another equally important and salient provision of law which has got to be taken into consideration in deciding a controversy as the one on hand. Section 18 of the Limitation Act reads as follows :

(3.) INASMUCH as Section 25 clearly lays down that all the cases referred to in sub -clauses (1) to (3) of Section 25 is a contract, a creditor who has the benefit of such a contract as is contemplated in sub -clauses (1) to (3) of Section 25 from the debtor is entitled in law to enforce the contract against the obliger and seek recovery of the amount agreed to be paid by the debtor under the contract.