PEDRO ANTONIO D SOUZA Vs. VIJAY CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for consideration in this Appeal is, as to whether the suit filed by the Respondent was within limitation. According to the Respondent (original Plaintiff), the suit was filed within limitation by application of Article 1 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, while the Appellants claim that the suit was barred by limitation by applying Article 19 thereof.

(2.) The Respondent filed suit against the Appellants on 31/10/2002, for a Decree directing the Appellants to pay a sum of Rs.4,20,538.61 along with interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum from 1/11/2022 till actual payment. According to the Respondent, the said amount was due towards loan amounts advanced to the Appellants on various dates between 1981 to 1997. It was the case of the Respondent that it had taken a house situated in Salcete, Goa, from the Appellants on rent, initially for a monthly rent of Rs.300.00 and after one year, for rent at the rate of Rs.350.00 per month. It was the case of the Respondent that the amounts advanced towards the loan to the Appellants were agreed to be repaid with interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum. The amount of monthly rent, which the Respondent was obliged to pay was being adjusted towards repayment of the loan amount. It was stated in the plaint that the last amount towards loan advanced to the Appellants was on 23/7/1997. The monthly rent of Rs.350.00 payable to the Appellants was being adjusted by the Respondent towards the amount due from the appellants and, in that context, the Respondent claimed to have maintained an account from 1981 till the date of filing of the suit.

(3.) It was the case of the Respondent that on 7/9/2001, the Respondent caused a notice to be issued through Advocate to the Appellants, stating the amount due towards the repayment of loan as on 31/8/2001. It was stated in the notice that since the amount of monthly rent credited to the account of the Appellants was insufficient to repay the loan and since the interest was mounting thereon, in the month of July 2000 itself, the Respondent had asked the Appellants to take some concrete steps to repay the loan along with interest. Yet the Appellants had neither given proposal for liquidating the loan under the loan account nor were the dues liquidated. On this basis, the Appellants were called upon to repay the loan amount along with interest within a period of one month, failing which, the Respondent would be constrained to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery.