JUGGI LAL Vs. SRI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent based on a registered lease, executed on the 1st of December 1883, and registered on the 31st of December 1883. The plaintiffs claim six years arrears. The Court below has given them a decree for three years arrears, holding that the claim for three years is barred by limitation.

(2.) The plaintiffs appeal and it is contended that the defendants have made an acknowledgment of their liability which, under the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, operates to save limitation. This acknowledgment is said to be found in the defendant s account books. Extracts of these account books are on the record. They contain certain entries relating to the rent of the land in suit. The plaintiffs, however, have failed to show that these accounts bear the signature of the defendants or their authorised agent. In this respect, they have failed to satisfy us that the entries in question operate as an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) It is further contended that the lease being a registered one, they are entitled to sue within fix years under Article 116. In a similar case decided by Mr. Justice Burkitt; Ram Narain v. Kamta Singh 26 A. 138 : A.W.N. (1903) 210 it was decided that Article 110 was applicable to a suit of this nature. The learned Judge observed: "I do not understand why, when this Article (110) apparently plainly provides for the case now before me, I should go out of my way and hold that Article 116 applies." We entirely agree with the view of Mr. Justice Burkitt in the case referred to. We are aware that the question has been decided differently elsewhere, but there has been no unanimity of opinion. Under these circumstances, we prefer to follow the decision of our own Court. The appeal is dismissed with costs.