PAMULAPATI VENKATAKRISHNIAH (MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND MANGAMMA) Vs. KONDAMUDI SUBBARAYUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I adhere to the opinion expressed by me in Jaganadha Sahu v. Rama Sahu (1914) 17 M.L.T. 80, on the same words as are in this document. I have no doubt that there is in this endorsement an acknowledgment. I cannot accept the argument, that Section 20 of the Limitation Act IX of 1908 prevents the operation of Section 19. It is argued that this is a special provision limiting the application of Section 19 and taking part-payments out of Section 19. I cannot treat these sections as being one general and the other special. Section 19 only operates as against the person making the acknowledgment, while Section 20 makes the part- payment good in favour of any suit on that liability. The second difference is that an acknowledgment need not be addressed to the person entitled; while under Section 20, the payment is, of course, not a payment unless made to the person entitled. It is clear, therefore, that Section 20 has a wider operation and that would account for the Legislature requiring actual handwriting before giving full effect to the language; but where there is not the handwriting, but only the signature, its operation is limited.

(2.) The appeal is allowed and the case is remanded for disposal.

(3.) Costs in this case will be costs in this cause. Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.