RAM PRASAD Vs. BINAEK SHUKUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal and has arisen out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,070-3-6 made up of Rs. 595-13-9 principal and Rupees 474-7-6 interest together with another sum of 0-2-3 which need not be detailed, on the allegation that the defendant purchased on 25 June 1914 from the plaintiff ornaments and cloth of the aggregate value of Rs. 1,003-9-6. and that he paid Rs. 210-10-0 on that date promising to pay balance within a month. It is also alleged that the defendant agreed to pay interest in case of non-payment of the aforesaid sum within the stipulated time.

(2.) The plaintiff's shop is at Badhohi in the Benares State. The transaction to which the suit relates had also taken place in Badhohi. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the Benares Court and obtained a decree on 27 July 1916 for the sum then due. Certain payments were made from time to time by the defendant and an application for execution of decree was made some time in 1926 and a sum of Rs. 100 was paid on 29 August 1926. This application was made in the Munsif's Court of Mirapur. The last application for execution was made in the same Court in 1928. It was contested on the ground that for certain reasons, which it is not necessary to mention, the decree obtained by the plaintiff from the Court of the Benares State was void. Accordingly execution of decree for the balance due was refused. The plaintiff then brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal on 15 October 1929 in the Court of the Munsif of Mirzapur. The claim is based on the original cause of action, namely, the purchase of ornaments and cloth on 25th June 1914. As defendant resides in the Mirzapur district, the plaintiff was entitled to institute a suit in the Mirzapur Court for recovery of what was due to him in respect of the transaction entered into in the Benares State. No question as to jurisdiction was raised in either of the Courts below or before us.

(3.) The suit was resisted principally on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The plaintiff attempted to escape the bar of limitation by relying upon a number of payments made by the defendant which, according to him, saved limitation under Secs.19 and 20, Limitation Act. Another ground on which the defendant succeeded in defeating the plaintiff's claim in the Courts below is that the payments made towards the satisfaction of the decree obtained by the plaintiff from the Benares Court could not be considered to be payment towards the original debt. We do not consider it necessary to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the Courts below on this point, as in our opinion the plaintiff's suit must fail on the ground of limitation. The defendant made a number of payments after the date of the transaction, the first of which was made within 3 years from that date. - . Each subsequent payment is within 3 years from the date of the next preceding payment. It follows that if every-one of the payments fulfils the requirements of Section 19 or Section 20, Limitation Act, the plaintiff may be held entitled to a decree. But to arrive at that finding every payment has to be examined in the light of the provisions of Secs.19 and 20, Limitation Act.