AMRIT NARAYAN SINGH Vs. BAIJNATH PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only substantial question in this appeal is whether a document dated 2nd May 1931 purporting to be a hand-note was a sufficient acknowledgment within Section 19, Lim. Act to remove the bar of limitation from a previous debt owed by the defendant to the father of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The facts are these. On 2 May, 1931 the defendant executed this document in favour of Bhagwat Pande. He had died a few days previously, that is to say on 28 April 1931. The hand-note so called appeared to have been given in renewal of two other hand-notes, Exs. 1(c) and 1(d) dated respectively 5 May 1923 and 11 July of the same year. The hand note of 2 May, 1931 was given for a sum of Rs. 3600; having been given in the events which have happened in favour of a dead person the document was obviously invalid as a promissory note. The question arises therefore whether the plaintiff can use the document as an acknowledgment under Section 19, Lim. Act. The learned Judge in the Court below has treated it as an acknowledgment within that section.

(3.) It is contended in the first instance that the document was not executed by the defendant. One of the contentions to support that argument was that the signature on the hand-note bore the word "Babu" and a signature of that kind was highly improbable. That argument, however, I am afraid cannot be supported for the reason that this Court must rely upon the document as translated, the translation appearing in the record of the case. From that translation it would appear that this word was not on the hand note.