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
8 paragraphs · 160 wordsThe District Judge found the plaintiff''s case was established, the averment in the plaint being that the loan was made on 30th September 1885,
and was repayable in one month from that date. The plaint was presented on 24th October 1888. There was also evidence to support the finding
of the judge.
Even therefore if the admission contained in the will does not amount to an acknowledgment the suit is not barred. We agree with the decision of
the Calcutta High Court in Rameshwar Mandal v. Ram Chand Roy I. L. R. 10 C 1033, that such a suit will fall under Article 115 of the Limitation
Act and not under Article 57.
The decree of the learned judge must therefore be reversed and that of the District Judge restored, but as this point was not taken before, we
shall make no order as to costs in this court. The plaintiff is entitled to the other costs.