THAKAR DAS Vs. SANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision of the order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge of Dharamsala reversing on appeal the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Kangra who had decreed the plaintiffs suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 386 on the basis of a pronote dated 15 July 1939 and dismissing the suit as barred by time.

(2.) Prima facie the suit was barred by limitation on the date on which it was instituted. Exemption from the law of limitation was, however, claimed by the plaintiffs on the ground that on 19 Magh 1998 corresponding to Slat January 1942 a sum of Rs. 49 had been paid by the defendant in part payment of the principal and the fact of such payment was duly endorsed on the pronote by him under his own band. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge is of the opinion that the endorsement relied on by the plaintiffs cannot extend limitation under Section 20, Limitation Act, because it does not state whether the payment of Rs. 49 had been made by the defendant on account of interest as such or in part payment of the principal but evidences only a payment in general account. In the petition for revision it is urged that even though the endorsement cannot extend limitation under Section 20, it obviously amounts to an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19, Limitation Act, and must, therefore, be held to save limitation under that section.

(3.) After reading the endorsement I am clearly of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is well founded and must; prevail. The endorsement in question reads as follows: Rs. 49 Sambat 1997 Bhadon Parwishta 5 arambh Sambat 1998 Magh Parwishta 19 shud uchabati de yori kari jama kite Sant Ramen hathin aj Sambat 98 Magh. Parwishta 19 baqalam khud Sant Ram Chachian. The above endorsement can be translated in English as follows: Credited Rs. 49, the total o? the sums borrowed from time to time between 5 Bhadon Sambat 1997 and 19 Magh Sambat 1998 in the hand of Sant Ram to-day the 19 Magh Sambat 1998. Signed by Sant Ram Chaehian. The rule of law that is deducible from the relevant authorities is that while a mere endorsement of payment does not constitute an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19, if the endorsement is so worded that an acknowledgment of the debt can be read into it, either in view of the express words used or by necessary implication, such endorsement may amount to an acknowledgment within the meaning of the afore, said section. The test that is generally to be applied in deciding whether the endorsement constitutes such an acknowledgment is to see if it is possible to read the words used as acknowledging liability for no more than the amount actually paid. Applying this test to the present case, I am clearly of the opinion that the endorsement does constitute such an acknowledgment. Where a note is made on a document creating liability against the executant of the document as to a certain amount having been credited to such an executant the necessary and inevitable inference is that the amount has been credited in the account evidenced by the original document or towards the liability created by that document. Such a note where made by the debtor himself must be held to constitute an acknowledgment by him of the liability evidenced by the document on which it is made.