UMAPADA TRIVEDI Vs. HARIPADA SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this appeal is what is the appropriate article of the Limitation Act in the case of a suit based on a personal covenant in a registered mortgage bond. It appears that in the present case as regards one of this points in the suit the plaintiff relied inter alia upon two payments, one made on 4 April 1922 and the other in April 1925. The mortgage bond itself was dated 17 April 1918. The suit was instituted on 4 September 1926. Of the two payments above mentioned the trial Court held that the first payment was good and that the second payment had not been established. He accordingly decreed the suit on mortgage, but held that the personal remedy was barred.

(2.) On appeal the lower appellate Court seems to have acted under a misapprehension. After summarizing the conclusions of the trial Court the learned Judge states as follows: Assuming that Art. 116, Lim. Act, applies even the payment of Rs. 19 made in 1328, B. S. that is to say the first payment made in April 1922, which has been believed, admittedly does Hot save limitation.

(3.) It does not seem to have been present in the mind of the learned Judge, in stating that conclusion, that Art. 116, Schedule 1, Lim. Act, provides a period of limitation of six years and not three years. If the six years period is applicable then the payment in question undoubtedly does save limitation, and that has not been disputed before us.