- (1.) This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of the division bench of the A. P. High court made in CCCA No. 82 of 1974 dated 3/11/1977. The appellant-Bank laid the suit on 10/2/1970 in the City Civil court to recover a sum of Rs. 35,000. 00 from the respondents on the foot of a promissory note and against the security of 133 shares of Nizam State Railway with a face value of Rs. 250. 00 each at 5% interest thereon. The trial court and the High court recorded a finding that the suit is barred by limitation. Thus the suit stood dismissed. The question, therefore, is whether the suit is barred bylimitation. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the respondents had executed a promissory note, Ex. A-2 dated 20/5/1953 for a sum of Rs. 37,000. 00 in favour of the appellant with a letter to transfer the demand loan. Thereafter certain amounts were paid from time to time up to 3/9/1953 for a sum of Rs. 37,000. 00 in favour of the appellant with a letter to transfer the demand loan. Thereafter certain amounts were paid from time to time up to 3/9/1959 under Ex. A-7. A. P. Jagirdar Debt Settlement Act, 1952 (for short "the Act") prescribed procedure for making the applications by the Jagirdars or the creditors to scale down the debt liability incurred by the Jagirdars and the procedure in that behalf has been prescribed thereunder. The respondents made an application in March 1960 under Section 11 of the Act for scaling down the debts. The Board issued notice to the appellant to submit the statement of the account. Ultimately the Bank has submitted the account on 15/9/1967, Ex. A-12 staling that the respondents were due of a sum of Rs. 74,062. 05 with interest at 9% from 1/7/1967. The Board by order dated 25/10/1967, Ex. A-1 I held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim for scaling down in view of the judgment of the full bench of the Andhra Pradesh High court in State Bank of Hyderabad v. Jt. Family of Makundas Raja Bhagwandas and Sons. The suit, therefore, came to be filed as stated earlier on 10/2/1970.
(2.) The High court held that Ex. A-13 dated 4/10/1967 cannot be used as an acknowledgement to save the limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (No. 36 of 1963. Similarly, Section 57 of the Act cannot be availed of since the Debt Settlement Board had not recorded any finding that the respondent is a debtor and, therefore, the running of the limitation having begun in 1953, it had run out its full course, so the suit was barred by limitation. Dismissal of the suit by the trial court was held to be correct.
(3.) Admittedly, the respondents made an application under Section 11 and also IA No. 77 of 1964 on 19-1-1962 under Section 30 read with Section 22 on the ground that the debts stand extinguished by reason of the fact that the appellant had not made an application under Section 11. The Board by its order dated 5/8/1964 held that: "As already stated the statement filed within the time on 21/6/1960 is sufficient compliance with the provisions in Section 30 (3 of the Act. I, therefore, find that the debt due to the Bank for which the Nizam's government shares have been secured is not extinguished. ";