TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 51 of 2006 on the file of the TV Additional District Judge, Warangal, was dismissed by judgment dated 8.2.2007. Hence, this second appeal. 2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows: The plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the 1st defendant during May 1977 without executing any document. The 1st defendant postponed the repayment of the said amount for a long time and ultimately on the intervention of the elders and well-wishers, the 1st defendant executed an agreement dated 10.12.2000 agreeing to repay the amount due within six months; in default, he would handover his house bearing No. 1-9-559 to the plaintiff as per the market value prevailing as on 10.6.2001. The first defendant though did not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis of the said pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff advanced Rs. 2,25,000/- during May, 1997 to defendant No. 1? (2) Whether defendant No. 1 executed agreement on 10.12.2000 acknowledging his liability of Rs. 2,25,000/- and agreeing to repay the same within six months and in default agreed to handover House No. 1-9-559 to the plaintiff? (3) Whether defendant No. l issued cheque dated 30.6.2001 for Rs. 2,25,000/- in favour of plaintiff? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount as claimed? (5) To what relief? 5. Before the trial Court, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....period of limitation prescribed for suit for recovery of money, there was no subsisting liability, which can be enforced through Court of law. The learned Counsel while submitting that the trial Court committed a grave error in not framing a specific issue with regard to the question of limitation and that both the Courts below failed to consider the crucial fact that Ex. A1 acknowledgment by the 1st defendant was made beyond the period of limitation, contended that the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff was a nullity and liable to be set aside on that ground alone. In support of his contentions the learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the decisions in Tilak Ram and Ors. v. Nathu and Ors. and Esakki Palpu and Or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. .... 10. While interpreting the scope and object of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (corresponding to Section 19 under the repealed Limitation Act, 1908), the Supreme Court in Tilak Ram's case (supra), held as under: (7) "The section requires (i) an admission or acknowledgment (i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the learned Counsel for the respondent Section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872 operates as an exception to the law of limitation and where there is an agreement between the parties under which there is an express promise to pay the time barred debt, the suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation. 12. Section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872 runs as under: 25. Agreement without consideration, void, unless it is in writing and registered, or is a promise to compensate for something done, or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law: An agreement made without consideration is void, unless- (1).... (2).... (3) It is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be c....