JURO RAUTO Vs. ADIKANDA PRADHANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which arises in this case is one of limitation.

(2.) The suit was based on a pro-note executed on 19 July 1928 by defendant 1 and his father. Subsequently five payments were made towards the debt. Of these the first was made on 18 February 1930 and the second on 17 February 1933. Both these payments were made by the father of defendant 1 but subsequently certain other payments were made also by defendant 1. The question which arose in the case was whether the first two payments save limitation.

(3.) The Court below has held that they do not, because the endorsements show simply that the payments were made by the father of defendant 1 and not that they were made by him on behalf of himself and defendant 1. Secs.20 and 21, Limitation Act, are clear on the point. If the payments had been made by the father of defendant 1 on his own behalf and on behalf of defendant 1, the limitation would have been saved. But as the learned Judge says, there is no evidence to show that the payment was made on behalf of both these persons.