BOLLAPRAGADA RAMAMURTHY TRADING UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF BOLLAPRAGADA RAMAMURTHI AND CO Vs. THAMMANA GOPAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. He sued in 1912 to recover damages for breach of a contract of which performance was due before 20th September 1906 and relied upon a letter dated 20th September 1909 to save a bar of limitation. Both the lower Courts dismissed the. plaintiff s suit on the ground that the letter does not contain an acknowledgment of liability suffi-cient to bring the case within Section 19 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) The letter Exhibit B signed by the defendants states that, as disputes about the contract were not settled and a suit was threatened, both parties agreed to refer matters to the arbitration of the persons mentioned therein. The material part of the document runs as follows:--" I shall agree to the decision made by them (arbitrators). Without having to do anything with the limitation of time, if they decide that I should pay any amount to you, I shall pay it immediately to you. If, perhaps, for any reason the said three mediators do not give their decision, it is settled that, on this letter, suit etc., proper steps may be taken and conducted in the court without having anything to do with the time-bar."

(3.) It is argued for the appellant that the letter contains a promise to pay whatever may be found due on arbitration and that there is an acknowledgment of liability. It is also argued that the agreement to refer to arbitration and not to plead limitation as a bar if the arbitration fell through is valid and binding on the parties amounting as it does to a covenant by one party not to sue till the arbitration was over and by the other not to plead limitation should it be necessary to file a suit.