SANT LAL MAHTON versus KAMALA PRASAD.

SANT LAL MAHTON versus KAMALA PRASAD.

Acknowledgment of payment by the defendant in a written statement filed after institution of the suit does not fulfill the requirements of section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act; to extend limitation, acknowledgment must be in existence prior to institution of suit. Thus, the suit for personal relief is barred by limitation, and courts were not justified in granting a money decree.

Parties
Appellant: Sant Lal Mahton; Respondent: Kamala Prasad
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 October 1951
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Decree Dated 17th March, 1944, Patna High Court, Affirming Subordinate Judge of Purnea, Decree Dated 27th February, 1942
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; decree for money against defendants set aside.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Suits, Mortgage, Attestation of Documents, Acknowledgment of Debt
Civil Procedure Property Law Limitation of Suits Mortgage Attestation of Documents Acknowledgment of Debt

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sant Lal Mahton

Appellant

Kamala Prasad

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Decree Dated 17th March, 1944, Patna High Court, Affirming Subordinate Judge of Purnea, Decree Dated 27th February, 1942

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit for personal relief against mortgage debtors was barred by limitation under the Indian Limitation Act
  2. 2 Whether written acknowledgment after institution of suit is sufficient for extension of limitation under section 20 of the Limitation Act
  3. 3 Whether the bond was properly attested as a mortgage bond

Ratio Decidendi

Acknowledgment of payment by the defendant in a written statement filed after institution of the suit does not fulfill the requirements of section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act; to extend limitation, acknowledgment must be in existence prior to institution of suit. Thus, the suit for personal relief is barred by limitation, and courts were not justified in granting a money decree.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; decree for money against defendants set aside.

Orders

  • Money decree against defendants is set aside as barred by limitation; no relief for mortgage decree due to absence of appeal or cross-objection from plaintiffs.