TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms acknowledgment letter as valid, alters principal amounts, interest rates.</h1> <h3>Khan Bahadur Shapoor Fredoom Mazda Versus Durga Prosad Chamaria and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision that the letter dated March 5, 1932, constituted a valid acknowledgment under Section 19 of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Limitation period for filing the suit.2. Validity of the acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act.3. Relationship between the parties and the nature of the acknowledgment.Detailed Analysis:1. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit:The principal issue in the suit was one of limitation. The respondent claimed that the suit was filed within the limitation period due to acknowledgments of liability made by the mortgagor in letters dated March 5, 1932, and February 17, 1943. The trial court held that only the last item of Rs. 2,500 was within time, resulting in a decree for Rs. 5,000 in favor of the respondent. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the respondent's case regarding the acknowledgment based on the letter of March 5, 1932, thereby bringing the principal amounts of Rs. 55,000 and Rs. 2,500 within time.2. Validity of the Acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act:The primary legal question was whether the letter dated March 5, 1932, constituted a valid acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. Section 19(1) stipulates that an acknowledgment must be made before the expiration of the limitation period, be in writing, and signed by the party against whom the right is claimed. The acknowledgment does not create a new right of action but merely renews the debt. The court emphasized that the statement must indicate a present subsisting liability and the existence of a jural relationship between the parties, such as that of debtor and creditor.3. Relationship Between the Parties and the Nature of the Acknowledgment:The letter in question was written by the mortgagor to the mortgagee, referring to the mortgagee's interest in the property and appealing to him to stop the sale by making a payment. The court concluded that the term 'interest' referred to the mortgagee's interest as a puisne mortgagee. The letter's context and the surrounding circumstances indicated that the mortgagor acknowledged the mortgagee's interest in the property, thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 19 of the Limitation Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision that the letter dated March 5, 1932, amounted to a valid acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the principal amounts due to the respondent were Rs. 55,000 and Rs. 2,500, with interest payable at 8% simple, subject to the maximum allowable under the Money-lenders' Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
