Juro Rauto vs Adikanda Pradhano and Others

Fazl Ali, J.—The only question which arises in this case is one of limitation.

The suit was based on a pro-note executed on 19th July 1928 by defendant 1 and his father. Subsequently five payments were made towards the debt. Of these the first was made on 18th February 1930 and the second on 17th February 1933. Both these payments were made by the father of defendant 1 but subsequently certain other payments were made also by defendant 1. The question which arose in the case was whether the first two payments save limitation.

The Court below has held that they do not, because the endorsements show simply that the payments were made by the father of defendant 1 and not that they were made by him on behalf of himself and defendant 1. Sections 20 and 21, Limitation Act, are clear on the point. If the payments had been made by the father of defendant 1 on his own behalf and on behalf of defendant 1, the limitation would have been saved. But as the learned Judge says, there is no evidence to show that the payment was made on behalf of both these persons.

In Narayana Ayyar v. Venkataramana Ayyar 25 Mad. 220 the law on the subject is stated thus:

When a creditor deals, not with the managing member only of an undivided family, but with all the members of the family, as co-obligors, and on that footing enters into a transaction--thereby avoiding any question as to whether the transaction was really for the benefit of the family--he cannot rely upon an acknowledgment of the liability made by one of them as an acknowledgment duly made on behalf of all the co-obligors, by reason only that the person acknowledging is in fact the managing member of the family consisting of the co-obligors.

In this case it was stated in the plaint that the loan was contracted for the benefit of the entire family, but this statement was denied and nothing was said in support of it in evidence. All that was stated in the plaintiff''s evidence was that the father of defendant 1 was the manager. That statement alone, however, cannot save limitation.

The application is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee one gold mohur.