MOPPURU NARAYANA Vs. MALLAVARAPU LURUDU MAREYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is by the plaintiff against the dismissal of S. C. S. No. 140 of 1946 by the Subordinate Judge of Tenali.

(2.) THE suit is for the recovery of Rs. 331 -4 -0 based on an acknowledgment of liability made by the defendant in his own writing on 11 -5 -1945. This was done in a note book belonging to the plaintiff and it was left in the possession of the plaintiff. The writing was in Telugu and as there was some dispute with regard to the translation, I had it translated by Court and it reads as follows : 'Three hundred and two rupees and annas eight only being the amount due to this date on looking into the accounts up to this date in respect of miscellaneous khatha (account) and in respect of the principal and interest relating to previous accounts. Sd. Mallavarapu Lurdu Marayya.'

(3.) THERE is no doubt, there is an observation that every acknowledgment is an implied promise to pay. But the words in Article 1 are 'that such an acknowledgment does not contain any promise to pay the debt or any stipulation to pay interest or to deliver any goods or other property.' It is one thing to say that an acknowledgment of a debt implied a promise to pay and another thing to find within the meaning of Article 1, Schedule 1 whether such an acknowledgment does or does not contain any promise to pay. The words 'contain any promise to pay' in my opinion amount to more than a mere implied promise. If every acknowledgment of a debt is to be taken as containing a promise then there is no need for the Legislature to add the words 'provided that such an acknowledgment does not contain any promise to pay the debt.' The words, undoubtedly, indicate express terms of promise and not merely an implied promise which is inherent in every acknowledgment of a debt. I therefore do not accept the contention that it is a promise to pay. It therefore falls under the first portion of Article 1.