ARUL JOTHI Vs. SHANMUGHA TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Defendants are the appellants. The suit O.S. No 1414 of 1981 before the District Munsif's Court. Erode was filed by the respondent against the appellants for recovery of Rs. 8099.83 due on dealings between the parties. It is not necessary to deal in extenso with- the respective contentions of the parties except to say that the dealings between the parties concluded by October 1975 and the respondent plaintiff wanted to rely on Ex. A.-24, dated 13.3.1978 to make a claim which was an acknowledgement by the second appellant who was a partner in the first appellant firm. Under Ex. A-24 a sum of Rs. 50 was paid and according to the respondent the suit filed on 21.10.1980 within three years of Ex. A-24 would be in time.

(2.) The appellants resisted the suit on several ground. The main contention was that the second appellant had not signed any receipt that the signature in Ex. A-24 was not his and that in any event he had no authority to acknowledge the debt of the firm. The trial Court found that the signature disputed was actually the signature of the second appellant. However the trial Court found that it had not been established by the respondent that the second appellant had authority to sign on behalf of the partnership firm first appellant. The trial Court dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 30.3.1983 on the ground of limitation. The respondent filed appeal A.S. No. 70 of 1983 before the District Court, Periyar District at Erode. The learned District Judge by his judgment and decree dated 19.10.1983 reversed the decision of the trial Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. Aggrieved, the present second appeal has been filed. 4. At the time of admission the following substantial questions of law were raised for decision in the second appeal. 1. Whether the lower appellate Court has committed an error in holding that the firm and the partners are liable for the suit claim, in the absence of material to show that the second defendant signed Ex. A-24 in his capacity as a partner and on behalf of the partnership firm. 2. Whether the lower appellate Court has committed an error in treating the bare signature of the second defendant in Ex.-A-24 as an incontrovertible acknowledgement of liability by him on behalf of the partnership firm ?

(3.) Whether the lower appella te Court has failed to take into consideration the applicability of Section 20(2) of the Limitation Act to the facts of the case ?