Limitation under Indian law applied in Goa transaction dispute, and a written payment acknowledgment revived the claim.

Where a cause of action arose under Indian enactments extended to Goa, Daman and Diu, the Portuguese Civil Code limitation provision did not govern the suit because the corresponding Portuguese substantive provision had been repealed; Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied, making the claim time-barred unless limitation was saved. The commentary also notes that a payment recorded in writing and acknowledged by the defendant's witness satisfied section 19 of the Limitation Act and created a fresh limitation period. On that basis, the appellate challenge was unsuccessful and the plaintiff's decree was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Letters Patent appeal was maintainable after the extension of the High Court's jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu; (ii) whether the suit for recovery of price of goods supplied was governed by the Portuguese Civil Code limitation period or by Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (iii) whether the payment of Rs. 5,000 on 15 April 1968 saved limitation under section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): whether the Letters Patent appeal was maintainable after the extension of the High Court's jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu.

Analysis: The transferred proceeding was required to be disposed of by the Bombay High Court as if it had been entertained by that Court. The earlier appellate judgment was therefore treated as a judgment of a single Judge of the High Court, making a further intra-court appeal competent.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the suit for recovery of price of goods supplied was governed by the Portuguese Civil Code limitation period or by Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The Portuguese Civil Code limitation provisions were recognised as a local law and, in the cases considered in the controlling precedent, they continued to apply where the cause of action arose under the Code itself. Here, however, the cause of action arose from a transaction governed by Indian enactments brought into force in the territory, so the corresponding Portuguese substantive provisions had stood repealed. In that situation the Portuguese limitation provision could not govern the suit, and the general limitation law applied. The Court held that the suit fell within Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and was barred by time unless saved by a later payment.

Conclusion: The suit was governed by Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and was time-barred unless saved by section 19.

Issue (iii): whether the payment of Rs. 5,000 on 15 April 1968 saved limitation under section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The written statement admitted payment of Rs. 19,000 on account of the supply. The evidence showed that the payment of Rs. 5,000 was recorded in writing and acknowledged in the handwriting of the defendant's own witness. The statutory requirement of a written acknowledgment of payment was therefore satisfied, and a fresh period of limitation ran from the date of payment.

Conclusion: The payment under section 19 saved limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the cause of action arises under Indian enactments extended to Goa, Daman and Diu and the corresponding Portuguese substantive provision stands repealed, the Portuguese limitation provision does not govern the suit, and a duly proved payment in writing by the debtor or its authorised witness gives a fresh period of limitation under section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

---