High CourtsSingle Bench

Kailasa Padiachi vs Ponnukannu Achi and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 2 November 1894 · Citation: (1895) ILR (Mad) 456

HON’BLE JUDGES
Muttusami Ayyar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 20
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 360 words

Muttusami Ayyar, J.—It is conceded that but for the payment of Rs. 10 on account of interest made on the 22nd December 1889, the suit

would be clearly barred; but it is contended that the Subordinate Judge is in error in holding that first counter-petitioner had no authority to make

such payments. This contention, I consider, is well founded. The Subordinate Judge relies on the decision in Wajibun v. Kadir Buksh ILR 13 Cal.

292 but that decision was dissented from chinnaya v. Gurunatham ILR 5 Mad. 169; Sobhanadri Appa Rau v. Sriramulu ILR 17 Mad. 221 and

Bhasker Tatya Shet v. Vijalal Nathu ILR 17 Bom. 512 The principle laid down in these cases is that a guardian is legally competent, in the

ordinary course of management, either to acknowledge a debt due by his or her ward, or to make a part-payment, or to pay interest. This being

so, the only question that arises for decision is whether the first counter-petitioner can be treated upon the facts found as a person duly authorized

to pay interest on behalf of the second within the meaning of Section 20 of the Limitation Act. It is true that the second counter petitioner had

attained majority when the payment was made, but the Subordinate Judge finds that he allowed his mother to continue in management for

sometime after he had become a major, and that the payment was made when she was so managing her son''s affairs. The payment of interest

accruing on an existing debt being an ordinary incident of management, I think it must be taken that the authority from the son to manage his affairs

included an authority to make the payment. I may observe that Section 20 of the Limitation Act only requires that the payment should be made by

an agent duly authorized. It is therefore immaterial that no special authority was given to her. I set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and

direct that the second defendant do pay the plaintiff the amount sued for with interest at 6 per cent, per annum from date of plaint till date of

payment and with costs.