BIRO Vs. DULLA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal against the appellate decree of Shri S.L. Chopra, Additional District Judge, Sangrur, dated the 30th of November, 1955 confirming that of the trial Court dated the 21st of December, 1954.

(2.) Smt. Biro, plaintiff-appellant, filed a suit which has given rise to this appeal against Dulla Singh, defendant respondent, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1470/- principal and Rs. 530/- interest, on the basis of sahi account. She alleged that the defendant had struck a balance for Rs. 1470/-on Jeth badi 2007 Bk. (corresponding to the 3rd of May, 1950) and had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The suit was Instituted on the 31st of May, 1954, obviously more than three years from the date of the striking of the balance. The plaintiff, however, alleged that the defendant had made an acknowledgement of liability in the written statement filed by him to an application filed by the plaintiff before the Debt Conciliation Board for the purpose of getting conciliation in respect of the plaintiff's debt. The said written statement was filed on the 27th of June, 1953, and was admittedly thumb marked by the defendant. It contained the following words:-

(3.) The defendant contested the claim and urged, inter alia that the suit was barred by time. He denied having struck the balance in suit and also denied having made any acknowledgement. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the balance of Rs. 1470/- was struck by the defendant respondent In favour of the plaintiff-appellant, and that the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to recover Rs. 1470/- principal amount, along with Rs. 530/- as interest. That Court, however, dismissed the suit on the ground that the same was barred by time. He held that the written statement, Exhibit P. B. dated the 27th of June, 1953 referred to above, did not in fact amount to acknowledgement of liability. He also came to the conclusion that the acknowledgement, even if it be deemed to have been made, would not give a fresh period of limitation as it was made beyond three years from the date of the balance, and therefore could not be said to have been made within the period of limitation prescribed for filing the suit. In the result, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit who feeling aggrieved against the decree of the "trial Court went up in appeal to the learned District Judge, Sangrur. There also she did not meet with any success inasmuch BS the learned Additional District Judge, who actually heard the appeal, confirmed the various findings arrived at by the learned trial Court, as also the decree passed by the said Court. In the second appeal filed in this Court, two points arise for decision-