JAGANNATH PRASAD SINGH DEO Vs. BIRBAL PANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Defendants appeal against a decrees for money in a suit for enforcing a contract. The Plaintiff's case is that the Defendant had borrowed, on a handnote dated 12 -10 -41, a sum of Rs. 9,000/ - and had made payments from time to time aggregating to Rs. 7,500/ -. On 26 -9 -1945, the Defendant sent a note Ext. 3 -(a) to the Plaintiff which is relied on by the Plaintiff as a fresh contract to pay the debt on the assumption that the claim under the handnote of 12 -10 -41 is barred by limitation. The handnote itself is not available as the Plaintiff says that it was lost during the partition disputes between himself and his brothers. The suit is, therefore, laid on the foot of Ext. 3(a) in which the Defendant is alleged to have promised to pay the debt. The learned Subordinate Judge found that Ext. 3(a) purports to be a contract within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act to pay a barred debt and is therefore enforceable. Section 25 of the Contract, says:

(2.) EXT . 3 -(a) i an endorsement on a note signed by the Dewan of the Defendant to 'the Zamindar (the Defendant). That note says: