Lekshmi Amma Janaki Amma and Others vs Ittiavira Abraham and Others

Kunhi Raman, C.J.—The only point that arises in this appeal and which is pressed on behalf of the Appellants by their learned Counsel is the question of limitation which formed the subject matter of issue 2. For saving limitation, reliance was placed upon an acknowledgment contained in para. 4 of Ex.A which was a written statement filed on behalf of the persons concerned by one Thrivikrama Kaimal. It bears his signature. The question as to whether he was authorised to sign this written statement on behalf of the relevant parties was raised but it has been found that he had and it is not in dispute here in this Court. Paragraphs 4, 10 and 13 of this document have to be read in deciding whether the document contains an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Section 19, Travancore Limitation Act. Paragraph 4 contains an admission of the execution of the Other deed under which the liability arose. In para 10 it is pleaded that the liability created by the document has become barred by limitation and consequently the suit is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed. Paragraph 13 contains a recital that if for any reason the Court arrives at the conclusion that the properties comprised in the Otti deed should be surrendered, provision should be made, for payment to the mortgagees of the items mentioned therein. Reading all these paras together with the rest of the document the substance of the averments may be summarized as follows. On behalf of the parties concerned an admission is made that the document under which the liability arose to enforce which the suit was brought, was executed by the parties concerned. This is followed by a denial of liability on the ground that the claim has become barred by limitation. Subsequently, the party concerned states that should the Court arrive at the conclusion that the suit is maintainable, proper provision should be made for compensating the debtor. In other words, para. 13 seems to us to imply that the debtor is willing to discharge his obligation subject to the condition that the Court finds that that right is enforceable. If this statement was not contained in EX. A, we would not have any hesitation in holding that the averments in paras. 4 and 10 do not amount to an acknowledgment u/s 19. But the averment in para, 13 saves the situation for the Plaintiff and we are of the opinion that taken along with! the admission of the source, of liability contained in para. 4, there is an acknowledgment of liability to save the claim from being barred by limitation u/s 19, Travancore Limitation Act. In Rustomji''s Law of Limitation Edn. 5, Vol. I, at p. 310, reference is made to the case in which a debtor promises to repay a debt when it is proved. On the authority of Halsbury''s Laws of England, (Edn. 1) vol. 10 p. 64, Mohesh Lall v. Busant Kumaree 6 Cal 340 : 7 C.L.R. 121 and Subba Rao v. Parasurama Pattar 46 I. C. 973: AIR 1919 Mad. 941. The author has expressed the opinion that such an admission is sufficient acknowledgment u/s 19, Indian Limitation Act. In the present case, it seems to us that the third clause in the written statement referred to above can be construed as amounting to such an acknowledgment.

We agree with the trial Court in holding that the acknowledgment was made before the claim became barred. We see no reason to disagree with the quantum of mesne profits awarded by the decree.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.