BANKANIDHI SANTRA Vs. GODIPATNA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a miscellaneous second appeal against an order of the District Judge of Cuttack dealing with an appeal from the first Munsif at Cuttack who had dismissed an application for execration. The main point which we have to consider is a simple one of limitation. The judgment-debtor who is the appellant was the defendant in a suit by the Godipatna Co-operative Society to recover the principal and interest of a loan made by the society to the appellant. A decree was passed against the appellant for a sum which represented the principal and the bond rate of interest and interest was to run upon the decretal amount at a Court rate of interest from the date of judgment until the date of payment. The successful plaintiff, the respondent in the matter before us, took out execution which was finally disposed of on 7 August 1931.

(2.) There was a further application, the one with which we are now dealing, on 27 August, 1934, more than three years after the disposal of the earlier execration case and prima facie the decree Under execration was barred by limitation but the decree-holder relies upon a payment of two annas. The payment was made to the Society and the books of the Society recorded the payment and recorded also in connexion therewith the signature of the judgment-debtor.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the judgment-debtor that whereas there is an entry in the minutes of the Society to the effect that the two annas was received by the Society and appropriated to the payment of interest, that the claim to the principal decretal amount is barred by limitation though the limitation may be saved in so far as the amount of interest is concerned and the argument is based upon Section 20, Limitation Act. The Act was amended by the Amendment Act of 1927. Prior to the amendment, payments to save limitation in respect of interest or in respect of principal differed. In the case of payments to commence a fresh period of limitation in respect of interest no writing was required on the part of the person liable to pay the debt whereas in the case of payments in respect of principal the requirement for writing was fixed.