RANGANAYAKALU AIYA Vs. SUBBAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The endorsement signed by the debtor on the 10 September 1899 is to the effect that some money was paid on the 20 July 1S93 towards the principal and interest due on the bond. This it seems to me is an acknowledgment that on the 20 July 1898 there was still money payable on the bond. The question is whether it amounts also to an acknowledgment that something remained unpaid on the 10 September 1899. In Maniram V/s. Seth Rupchand 33 T.A. 105 : 4 C.L.J. 94 : 8 Bom. L.R. 501 : 10 C.W.N. 874 : 1 M.L.T. 199 : 3 A.L.J. 525 : 16 M.L.J. 300 : 33 C. 1047 : 2 N.L.R. 130 the, Judicial Committee "were dealing with a document dated September. 1899 in which the debtor stated for the last 5 years he had open and current accounts with the deceased (one Motiram)." Their Lordships held that this was an acknowledgment sufficient to save limitation, and in considering the view taken by one of the Courts below they remark the first instance "that which I have set out--shows that there were open accounts at the death of Motiram. If nothing further is alleged the natural presumption is that they continued unsettled at the time the statement was made." That is to say or so it seems to me an acknowledgment of liability existing at a past date without any allegation that the liability has since ceased, is presumed to be an acknowledgment of liability existing when the statement is made. In the case before me the debtor acknowledged a liability as existing on the 20 July 1898 and did not suggest that anything had been paid after that date and before the date of the acknowledgment. He must, therefore, in accordance with the view of the Privy Council be held to have acknowledged liability on the 10 September 1899.

(2.) If then there was a subsequent acknowledgment or part-payment as is alleged but denied the suit will be in time.

(3.) The decree must be reversed and the suit remanded to the District Judge for disposal according to law.