LALAM SAMBAYYA, DEFENDANT Vs. PATTAM SHEMSHERKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that falls for determination in this revision petition is whether a statement made by a witness in the court admitting a time-barred debt fulfils the requirements of Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act. The relevant facts to appreciate the arguments may briefly be stated. The petitioner herein borrowed a sum of Rs. 200/-from the plaintiff-respondent and executed a promissory note in his favour on 16-7-1951 agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. On 15-6-1954 he paid a sum of Rs. 5/- and made an endorsement on the pronote. There were no subsequent payments and the claim became time-barred. On 18-8-1958 he was examined as a witness in the case in which the respondent herein was the 1st defendant (O. S. No. 30 of 1958). During the course of cross-examination he stated as under :

(2.) It is common ground that at the time when the statement referred to above was made by the petitioner the debt was subsisting, so that the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act were available and it is only the provisions of Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, if applicable, could save the claim from being time-barred. The learned Munsif with reference to Section 19 of the Limitation Act held that when a deposition of a witness can be taken into consideration under Section 19 it can also be validly taken into account under Section 25 (3) of the Indian Contract Act. Section 19 of the Limitation Act lays down that :

(3.) The section refers to an acknowledgment of liability in respect of a subsisting debt. It has been held that a deposition of the debtor was sufficient for this purpose, but the question is whether a deposition of this nature could be held sufficient for the purpose of attracting the provisions of Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act. In other words, can an "acknowledgment" be equated to a fresh promise to pay a debt barred by limitation. The relevant provisions of Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act are as under :