ALUR NARASIMHA MURTHY Vs. ADONI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Munsif, Adoni, in E.P. No. 220 of 1963 in S.C.S. No. 138 of 1955 holding that the E.P. filed is within time. Mr. Ramalinga Reddi appearing for the petitioner has raised the question whether an acknowledgment of liability by an advocate on behalf of his client would be an acknowledgment by his agent duly authorised on behalf of the judgment- debtor within the scope or ambit of section 19 of the Limitation Act. To appreciate the contention of Mr. Ramalinga Reddi the following facts may be necessary. The respondent Municipality laid action in S.C. No. 138 of 1955 in the Court of the: District Munsiff, Adoni and obtained a decree against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs 86-49 nP., being the tax arrears due to the Municipality. This decree was on 2oth August, 1955 and the petitioner came up in revision to the High Court and it was dismissed on 3Oth June, 1958. Subsequently on 23rd July, 1960 the Advocate of the petitioner wrote a letter Exhibit A-2 to the Commissioner of the respondent Municipality stating that there was no need to execute the decree as his client was ready and willing to pay such amount as may be found due under the decree. This letter, according to Mr. Ramalinga Reddi, does not constitute an acknowledgment within the meaning of section 19 of the Limitation Act and therefore the application E.P. No. 220 of 1963 filed on 18th June, 1963 is time-barred and the decree has thus become inexecutable. It may be necessary to extract the letter of the Advocate in order to see whether this letter constitutes an acknowledgment by an agent duly authorised on behalf of the judgment-debtor. ADONI (Andhra Pradesh) 23-7-'60.

(2.) Mr. Ramalinga Reddi's contention is that the Advocate is not a duly authorised agent and whatever Vakalat was executed by the judgment-debtor in favour of the Advocate was only for the purpose of the Small Cause suit and there was no authorisation of any kind to the Advocate to correspond or commit himself on behalf of the judgment-debtor in so far as the Municipality is concerned. Mr. Sankara Rao appearing for the respondent Municipality contended that an Advocate acting on behalf of his client is a duly authorised agent and there is nothing to show that the acknowledgment of the Advocate is not a valid acknowledgment and that the Advocate was not retained or engaged by the judgment- debtor for acting on his behalf. The question that falls for determination is whether there was the relationship of an advocate and client between Gangadhara Chetty, the Advocate in this case and his client, the judgment-debtor and if so, whether he was the judgment-debtor's duly authorised agent competent to acknowledge the debt on his behalf. Mr. Shankara Rao appearing for the respondent has invited my attention to a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ramhit Rai v. Satgur Rai, (1881) I.L.R. 3 All 247. wherein it was observed :

(3.) A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Hingan Lal v. Mansa Ram, (1898) I.L.R. 18 All. 384. held that an admission made by an Advocate or duly authorised vakil on behalf of his client in a memorandum of appeal in a case not inter parles, that a certain decree was a subsisting decree capable of execution will amount to an acknowledgment within the meaning of section 19 of the Act so as to give fresh starting point to limitation for execution of such decree. In Rango Lall Lohea v. Wilson, (1898) I.L.R. 26 Cal. 204. the plaintiffs sued the defendants for arrears of rent relying upon the following letter as an acknowledgment sufficient to take their demand out of the Limitation Act :-