Malladi Krishnayya vs Tondepu Venkatappayya and Others

Jackson, J.—The suit is for Rs. 252-9-3 (Rupees two hundred and fifty two, annas nine and pies three only) due on dealings. The lower

Court has found that the amount is due but has dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. Plaintiff accordingly prefers this Civil Revision Petition.

The point lor decision is whether 4th defendant has made such acknowledgment of liability as falls within the mischief of Section 19 Indian

Limitation Act. There were two partners, first defendant and one Seshayya father of 4th defendant. On 1st December 1918, (Exhibit C.) 4th

defendant wrote to plaintiff: "" In respect of the amount due to you under the joint account opened with you in the names of my father and Rajasree

Kottumasu Narasimham Garu (1st defendant) I agree to pay you the whole amount with interest alter taking accounts. The date of this letter will

admittedly save the bar of limitation and it seems to be a clear acknowledgment of liability. It is strenuously contended that 4th defendant had no

business to make this acknowledgment at this date that he was neither partner nor agent and acted gratuitously. I do not think that the onus rests

upon plaintiff to prove why the acknowledgment was made; that was a fact peculiarly within the knowledge of the 4th defendant. No doubt if the

plaintiff wished to establish that 4th defendant by his acknowledgment committed other defendants also he would have to prove some sort of

agency and authority and that is the only point which the lower Court has considered. As regards himself 4th, defendant''s bare acknowledgment is

sufficient for plaintiffs purpose and the statute requires nothing more. So long as the 4th defendant is the person against whom the properly or right

is claimed it does not matter whether at the moment of his making the acknowledgment the claim could have been enforced. Jugal Kishore v.

Fakruddin. 3 A.L.J. 680 : (1906) A.W.N. 286.

I find, therefore, that there is no bar of limitation as against 4th defendant, and plaintiff is entitled to a decree against such assets of ancestral

property of Seshayya as can be traced to 4th defendant. Once the bar of limitation is removed there is no doubt that 4th defendant is bound by his

pious obligation. Costs against 4th defendant throughout.