THAVVA SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. CHENNA VENKATARATNAM
LAWS(APH)-1955-8-6
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 01,1955

THAVVA SUBRAHMANYAM Appellant
VERSUS
CHENNA VENKATARATNAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MARRECO V. RICHARDSON [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH V. DINABANDHU SAH [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNASWAMI IYER V. RAMAKRISHNA AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
PRAFULLA CHANDRA NAG VS. JATINDRA NATH KAR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

GORILAL BALDEODAS VS. RAMJEELAL BHURALAL [LAWS(MPH)-1960-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
WAZIR SULTAN AND SONS VS. P SATCHITHANANDA RAO [LAWS(MAD)-1958-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN APPAREL INDUSTRIES VS. FAIR DEAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2000-5-75] [REFERRED TO]
RAJPATI PRASAD VS. KAUSHALYA KUER [LAWS(PAT)-1980-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
STAR TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. OLIVE TEA PLANTATIONS P. LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2007-4-70] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI CHELUR VS. SUBRAMONIA IYER [LAWS(KER)-1975-10-37] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Subba Rao, C.J. - (1.)Umamaheswaram J. has referred this appeal to a Bench as, in the learned Judge's view, the question of law raised is one of importance and there was a conflict of authorities on the same.
(2.)The relevant facts, that gave rise to the appeal, may be briefly stated. The plaintiff is a merchant of Kanuparthi dealing in salt and the defendant is a merchant of Bezwada dealing in the same commodity. The defendant was purchasing salt from the plaintiff and was paying amounts towards purchase price from time to time. On 27-8-1946, he issued a cheque on the Andhra Bank in favour of the plaintiff and the cheque was cashed and credited in the plaintiff's account on 27-8-1946. The suit was filed on 24-12-1948. The suit would be barred by limitation if the payment of Rs. 121-2-0 by the issue of a cheque did not operate as payment within the meaning of Section 20, Limitation Act. The short question, therefore, is whether a payment by cheque made by, a debtor in favour of a creditor is a payment which satisfies the terms of Section 20 Limitation Act. Section 20 reads:
(1) "Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his duly authorised agent, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made. Provided that, save in the case of a payment of interest made before the first day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the hand writing of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment".

(3.)The proviso to Sub-section (1) was substituted by the Indian Limitation (Amendment) Act (Act I of 1927) in the place of the old Proviso which stood as follows:
"Provided that in the case of part payment of the principal of debt, the fact of the payment appears in the handwriting of the person making the same".

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.