BETI MAHARANI Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises questions under the Indian Limitation Ad, 1877. The suit is brought on a bond for Bs.7000, executed on the 20th of June, 1876, by Lala Laik Singh, whose estate is now under the management of the Court of Wards, in favour of the firm of Gopalji Kishen Das. The Plaintiff, who is now Appellant, is assignee of the bond. The Defendant, the Collector of Etawah, represents the Court of Wards.

(2.) THE debt was made payable on the 1st of November, 1876. Nothing has been paid on it. The suit was brought on the 6th of November, 1888, more than twelve years after the date of payment. The term of limitation is six years; so that the Plaintiff has to prove circumstances which interfere with this running of time. Those circumstances are three in number: First, an acknowledgment of the debt made by one Ajudhia Parshad on the 14th of October, 1882; secondly, a notice given; by the Deputy Collector of Etawah in April, 1888; thirdly, an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri on the 17th of May, 1881, for attachment of the bond, which remained in force till the 7th of March, 1887. If there has been a valid acknowledgment by Ajudhia, and also by the Court of Wards, as contended, the right of suit is saved; or if the attachment prevented the running of time, and there has been either acknowledgment by Ajudhia or by the Court of Wards, there is the f same result. But, unless the Plaintiff can establish one of those combinations of events, the suit is barred.

(3.) HIS deposition is a clear acknowledgment of the liability of Laik. He identifies the bond in suit and another, and adds, "I consider my master, Laik Singh, to be the debtor." Perhaps that may properly be taken in the Plaintiff's favour, as meaning that the debt was due from Laik's assets or from his heir. But then arises the question whether he was" an agent duly authorized in that behalf" within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The Subordinate Judge decided that he was not. In the High Court Tyrrell, J., took the same view, and Straight, J., inclined to the contrary view.