VINAYAK Vs. KASABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Application arises out of Small Cause Suit No. 14 of 1981 filed by the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 900/- against the respondents in the Court of the Civil Judge, J. D. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmadnagar. According to the plaintiff, he had advanced a sum of Rs. 900/- by way of loan to Ramchandra Maruti who was the father of defendants 2 to 5 and husband of defendant 1, on Mar. 1, 1973, and in token of having received the said amount, Ramchandra executed a document on a stamp paper having received the said amount. It was his further case that thereafter on Dec. 30, 1975, and on Dec. 30, 1978, the said Ramchandra acknowledged the said debt by making endorsements to that effect on the original document dt. Mar.1,1973. The suit was filed after the death of Ramchandra against the defendants as his heirs. Various contentions were raised by the defendants in the written statement denying their liability to pay the amount. The learned trial Judge rejected the contentions raised by the defendants on merits of the case. He, however, dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the ground of limitation. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed this revision application.

(2.) On the admitted facts of this case, it is obvious that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the suit is barred by limitation. Admittedly the loan was advanced on Mar. 1, 1973, under a stamped receipt of the same date. There are two acknowledgements, one dt. Dec. 30, 1975 and the other dt. Dec. 30, 1978. The suit is filed on Mar. 20, 1981. The contention raised is two-fold. Firstly, that the second acknowledgment dt. Dec. 30. 1978, is unstamped and therefore inadmissible in evidence. Secondly, in any event, the second acknowledgment dt. Dec. 30, 1978, having been made after the expiry of three years, cannot extend the period of limitation.

(3.) As far as the first contention is concerned, it is seen that the acknowledgment dt. Dec. 30, 1978 clearly states that the time for payment is extended, which means that there was a promise to pay the loan. In Govindram Mithamal v. Chotumal Vallerdas, 72 BLR 653 , it has been held that in an acknowledgment which is not one under Art.1 of Sch.1 of the Stamp Act but is otherwise an acknowledgment of the saving limitation under S.19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (which corresponds to S.18 of the Limitation Act of 1963), the insufficiency or want of stamp is irrelevant and the document would still be admissible for proving the acknowledgment. The learned trial Judge, therefore, clearly erred in holding that acknowledgment to be inadmissible in evidence on the ground that it is not stamped.