Receivers, lost promissory notes, and balance-sheet acknowledgments shape proof, limitation, and maintainability in debt litigation.

A receiver suing on behalf of a deceased person's estate did not need a succession certificate, because the statutory bar in section 214 applies only to claims by succession, not to a court-appointed receiver. A suit on lost promissory notes could proceed where loss was sufficiently proved and indemnity was available, and mere non-production was not fatal. The defence of discharge failed because the alleged repayments and supporting documents were not satisfactorily established. A balance-sheet filed with an income-tax return was admissible when lawfully obtained, and a signed balance-sheet showing an outstanding debt operated as an acknowledgment of subsisting liability under limitation law, giving a fresh starting point.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit by a receiver required a succession certificate under section 214(1)(a)(iii) of the Indian Succession Act; (ii) whether the suit could proceed on lost promissory notes under Order 7, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (iii) whether the defence of discharge of the promissory-note debts was proved; (iv) whether the trial balance-sheet enclosed with the income-tax return was admissible and operated as an acknowledgment under section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the suit by a receiver required a succession certificate under section 214(1)(a)(iii) of the Indian Succession Act.

Analysis: The statutory bar in section 214 applies only where a person claims on succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased. The plaintiff sued as a receiver appointed by the court, and the requirement of a succession certificate did not attach to such a suit. The safeguard of an indemnity bond further protected the judgment-debtor.

Conclusion: The objection was rejected and the suit was maintainable without a succession certificate.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit could proceed on lost promissory notes under Order 7, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The rule permits a decree on a negotiable instrument if loss of the instrument is proved and an indemnity is furnished. The evidence showed a consistent case that the promissory notes were in the custody of the widow and were suppressed, that the defendant failed to produce them even after being called upon, and that the plaintiff took steps to secure their production. The court accepted that the notes were lost so far as the plaintiff was concerned.

Conclusion: The non-production of the promissory notes was not fatal and the plaintiff proved loss sufficiently.

Issue (iii): Whether the defence of discharge of the promissory-note debts was proved.

Analysis: The defendant's case of discharge rested on alleged set-off, a loan from one person, and a further borrowing evidenced by documents and oral testimony. The alleged discharged notes were not produced, the account support was absent, and the oral evidence was found unreliable and inconsistent. The alleged payments and endorsements were not satisfactorily established.

Conclusion: The plea of discharge failed and was rejected.

Issue (iv): Whether the trial balance-sheet enclosed with the income-tax return was admissible and operated as an acknowledgment under section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

Analysis: Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 protects confidential income-tax particulars from compulsory production by the department, but it does not by itself make a document inadmissible if it is otherwise lawfully available. The copy of the balance-sheet was obtained from a partner entitled to possess it, and the defendant who signed it also referred to it in evidence, amounting to waiver of any privilege. On limitation, an acknowledgment must relate to a subsisting liability; a balance-sheet signed by the managing partner and showing the debt as outstanding was treated as an acknowledgment from the date of signature, thereby giving a fresh starting point.

Conclusion: Exhibit A-1 was admissible and constituted a valid acknowledgment saving limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantial grounds, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A balance-sheet signed by the debtor and showing an outstanding debt can amount to an acknowledgment of a subsisting liability from the date of signature, and income-tax confidentiality does not prevent admission of a lawfully obtained copy otherwise admissible in evidence.

---