(1.) THIS appeal raises questions as to the true construction and effect of Section 20 of the Indian limitation Act (IX of 1908) as amended by the Indian Limitation Amendment Act (I of 1927), Conflicting decisions in India have made it desirable that their Lordships should construe the Section, and as in the present case the High Court has differed from the trial Court on the facts, the evidence must be examined.
(2.) THE plaintiff appellant Rama Shah is described as a banker and carries on a business at Jhelum which includes the lending of money. THE defendant Lal Chand is a timber merchant of the same town who on various occasions between October 17, 1929, and July 17, 1931, took a loan from the plaintiff, giving to him a promissory note for the amount of the loan with interest at twelve per cent, per annum. Two small loans not covered by promissory notes were alleged by the plaintiff to have been made and were disputed by the defendant, but five promissory notes are admitted by the defendant and a number of substantial payments are admitted by the plaintiff to have been received in respect of them. THEre has, however, been considerable dispute between the parties as to the proper allocation of the payments to promissory notes. In the result, when the plaintiff on January 24, 1936, brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Jhelum the suit out of which this appeal arises, he brought it as a suit for the balance due upon a promissory note for Rs. 18,500 dated February 4, 1930. He claimed that the amount outstanding for principal and interest was Rs. 11,463. THE learned Subordinate Judge was satisfied as to the correctness of this figure, but the High Court having reduced it to Rs. 10,334-9-3, the plaintiff by his counsel has accepted the lower figure as the sum to be decreed if it be held that his suit succeeds.
(3.) BEFORE 1927 the proviso read:Provided that, in the case of part payment of the principal of a debt, the fact of the payment appears in the handwriting of the person making the same.