MOHAMMED GHOUSE Vs. DANDOO ANGIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant seeks to reverse a decree by the Subordinate Judge, Secunderabad, whereby the claim to recover the sum of Rs. 6,036-11-9 has been allowed. The one point, on which this appeal has been pressed before us, is of limitation, and should we disagree with the several arguments urged in support of the appeal, it would fail. The plaint is dated April 21, 1952. Therein the plaintiffs had stated that the appellant had been purchasing brass-sheets and strips on credit for his factory styled 'Mohammedia Button Factory'. There is the further allegation of the plaintiffs' having advanced a loan of Rs. 10,000 to the appellant on a separate account and there being a surety for purposes of repayment of the said amount. It is stated that the defendant made payments from time to time not specifying in what manner these payments would be appropriated and the jewel box pledged as security for the loan was taken away. It is also stated in the plaint that the balance sued for is not barred by limitation, because the debit items prior to April 21, 1949 have been discharged by credit items in order of time, which were made or appropriated towards such earlier items ; because there were acknowledgments on behalf of the appellant sufficient to attract section 19 of the Limitation Act. There is the further plea of payment under section 20 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) The trial Court has found the suit to be within the period of three years, because of lawyer's reply to the notice, which is Exhibit P-22 and is dated November 12, 1951. The trial Judge has further found the claim to be within limitation, because of payments through cheques, Exhibits P-42 and P-43, the former being of December 30, 1948 and the latter of April 15, 1949.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that as both the payments were beyond three years of the date of the plaint, they cannot save limitation. He has rightly pointed that in these circumstances the respondents cannot claim benefit of section 20 of the Limitation Act. So far as the claim being within limitation because of Exhibit P-22, which is admittedly within three years of the suit, is concerned, it is argued that there is no acknowledgement sufficient to attract section 19 of the Limitation Act. The notice is in Urdu and for purposes of decision of this appeal, we would take the translation furnished to us by the Office. The relevant parts are paragraphs 1 and 2 and they may usefully be quoted here :-