- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Kerala v. T.M Chacko .
Factual and Procedural Background
The Forest Department of the State of Kerala auctioned forest produce in various coupes. The respondent was the highest bidder for sub-coupe VII of Coupe X, with a bid of Rs 75,000 accepted on 15 January 1974. He paid Rs 60,125, leaving Rs 25,000 outstanding, and was required to remove all produce by 31 March 1974. A forest fire on 21 February 1974 destroyed the remaining produce. The respondent sought remission of the bid amount; instead, by Government Order dated 27 June 1974, he was granted an additional 45 days to remove the produce and one month to pay the balance without interest. He did neither. On 19 September 1974, the Divisional Forest Officer cancelled the contract, confiscated the unremoved timber and ordered its re-auction at the respondent's risk.
After issuing notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the respondent filed an indigent suit on 28 July 1977 before the Subordinate Judge, Trivandrum, claiming Rs 83,000 in compensation (including refund of the bid amount) with interest. The State denied liability and pleaded limitation. The trial court (19 July 1980) and subsequently the Kerala High Court (31 March 1981) held that Exhibits B-4 and A-8 constituted acknowledgements of liability and deemed the suit timely. The State of Kerala appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Exhibits B-4 (Government Order dated 27 June 1974) and A-8 (Divisional Forest Officer’s letter dated 19 September 1974) contain a valid acknowledgement of liability by the State within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- If no such acknowledgement exists, whether the respondent’s suit for refund of the bid amount is barred by limitation under Article 47 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant — State of Kerala
- Exhibits B-4 and A-8 do not acknowledge any liability to refund the bid amount; they merely extend time for performance and impose consequences for non-performance.
- Absent a valid acknowledgement, Article 47 limits the suit to three years from 21 February 1974 (the date the consideration failed); the suit filed on 28 July 1977 is therefore time-barred.
Respondent — T.M. Chacko
- The respondent’s earlier representation for remission implicitly included a demand for refund; when read in that context, Exhibits B-4 and A-8 amount to acknowledgements of liability, restarting limitation under Section 18.
- Alternatively, because Exhibit B-4 extended the period for contract performance to 10 August 1974, limitation should run from that date, rendering the suit timely.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Harrisons & Crossfield Ltd. v. State of Kerala (Kerala HC) | An acknowledgement need not expressly admit a specific liability; admission of facts from which liability necessarily follows can suffice. | Trial court and High Court relied on this principle, but the Supreme Court distinguished its application, holding that the facts here did not amount to such an admission. |
| Shapoor Fredoom Mazda v. Durga Prosad Chamaria, AIR 1961 SC 1236 | Essentials of a valid acknowledgement under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (substantially similar to Section 18, 1963): it must admit a present subsisting liability and indicate a debtor-creditor relationship. | The Court applied these essentials to conclude that Exhibits B-4 and A-8 lacked any admission of subsisting liability to refund the bid amount. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Applicable Limitation Provision: Both parties agreed that Article 47 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs the claim. The consideration (forest produce) failed on 21 February 1974; hence, the three-year limitation expired on 21 February 1977.
2. Section 18 Requirements: The Court outlined that an acknowledgement (i) must relate to the liability in question, (ii) be in writing and signed by the liable party, and (iii) be made before the limitation period expires, thereby restarting the clock.
3. Exhibit B-4 Analysis: This Government Order merely extended time for removal of timber and payment of the balance. It addressed the respondent’s request for remission but did not admit any obligation to refund the bid amount. No jural relationship of debtor-creditor regarding refund was acknowledged.
4. Exhibit A-8 Analysis: The Divisional Forest Officer’s letter cancelled the contract, confiscated unremoved produce and warned of re-auction at the respondent’s risk. It likewise contained no admission of liability to refund monies already paid.
5. Distinguishing Harrissons & Crossfield: Unlike in that case, the documents here did not admit any facts from which a liability to refund inevitably flowed; therefore, the precedent did not assist the respondent.
6. Reliance on Shapoor Fredoom Mazda: An acknowledgement must reveal consciousness of liability. Neither Exhibit met that criterion; thus, Section 18 could not extend limitation.
7. Rejection of Alternative Limitation Theory: The argument that the extension of contract to 10 August 1974 deferred the “failure of consideration” was both novel (not raised below) and legally untenable because the suit was founded on frustration, not breach.
8. Conclusion on Limitation: With no valid acknowledgement, limitation expired on 21 February 1977, rendering the suit filed on 28 July 1977 hopelessly barred.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; suit dismissed.
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the Kerala High Court, concluding that the respondent’s suit was time-barred. The immediate consequence is that the respondent recovers nothing and the State bears no liability for the bid amount. The decision reiterates that mere administrative extensions or correspondence that do not expressly or impliedly admit liability cannot revive a time-barred claim under Section 18. No new precedent is created, but the ruling underscores strict adherence to the statutory requirements for a valid acknowledgement of liability.
Order
1. The short question that arises in this appeal is whether Exhibits B-4 and A-8 do not contain any acknowledgement of the liability by the appellant-defendant, the State of Kerala, and if so is the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, for recovery of the bid amount paid to the Forest Department, barred by limitation under Article 47 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. Briefly stated, the following facts give rise to this question:
The Forest Department of the State of Kerala auctioned the forest produce in different coupes. The respondent was the highest bidder of sub-coupe VII of Coupe X and his bid of rupees seventy-five thousand was accepted on 15-1-1974. The respondent paid Rs. 60,125 towards the bid amount and other charges and a sum of rupees twenty-five thousand remained unpaid. The respondent was to collect and remove the whole forest produce of the said coupe on or before 31-3-1974. Part of it only was collected and removed by him before 21-2-1974, when unfortunately fire broke out in the reserved forest which also destroyed the remaining forest produce of the respondent's coupe. The respondent made representations to the Forest Department seeking reduction of the bid amount on the ground that his coupe was destroyed by the wild fire. On 27-6-1974, the Government of Kerala instead of reducing the bid amount thought it fit to grant further time of forty-five days to enable him to remove the forest produce. The respondent neither paid the balance of the bid amount nor removed the forest produce in his coupe. On 19-9-1974, the Divisional Forest Officer intimated to the respondent that as he failed to satisfy the conditions of the contract and remit the amount due to the Government, it was cancelled and the produce left on the site was confiscated and ordered to be auctioned at the risk and loss of the respondent.
3. The respondent, thereafter, issued notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the appellant claiming the amount of compensation which included refund of the bid amount and filed the suit as an indigent person on 28-7-1977 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Trivandrum, praying the Court to grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 83,000 with twelve per cent interest per annum amounting to Rs. 35,690 and future interest at six per cent per annum. The appellant denied that it was liable for payment of any compensation and pleaded, inter alia, that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court came to the conclusion that as the appellant acknowledged the liability both under Exhibits B-4 and A-8, the suit was not barred by limitation and thus decreed the suit on 19-7-1980. The appellant carried the matter in appeal before the High Court of Kerala in AS No. 150 of 1981. On 31-3-1981 the High Court confirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. From the said judgment of the High Court, the present appeal arises.
4. Ms Malini Poduval, learned counsel for the appellant contends that neither Exhibit B-4 nor Exhibit A-8 can be treated as an acknowledgement of the liability of the respondent's claim and, therefore, the trial court as well as the High Court erred in holding that the suit was not barred by limitation.
5. Mr Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the representation of the respondent, requesting the Government to reduce the bid amount, would, by implication, include demand for refund of the bid amount and read in that background, Exhibits B-4 and A-8, are rightly held as acknowledgement of the liability by the appellant. In the alternative, argues the learned counsel, as under Exhibit B-4, time for performance of the contract by the respondent was extended till 10-8-1974, the suit will be within limitation from that date.
6. It is the common case of the parties that the suit of the respondent for recovery of the bid amount paid by him for the forest produce, on the ground that due to the wild fire the contract was frustrated, is governed by Article 47 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The said article reads as under:
“Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 47. For money paid upon an existing consideration which afterwards fails. Three years The date of the failure.”
The period of limitation is three years from the date of the failure of consideration upon which the money was paid. The bid amount was paid by the respondent for forest produce which had failed on destruction of forest produce due to spread of the wild fire. The date of failure would, therefore, be the date of fire, which is 21-2-1974. The suit was filed on 28-7-1977. It is clearly barred by limitation unless, as pleaded by the respondent, there is acknowledgement of the liability by the appellant in Exhibits B-4 and A-8 and, therefore, the period starts from the date of the acknowledgement of the liability i.e from 19-9-1974.
7. Now, we shall advert to Section 18 of the Limitation Act which speaks of the effect of acknowledgement in writing and it reads as follows:
“18. Effect of acknowledgement in writing.—(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement 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 acknowledgement was so signed.
(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgement is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—
(a) an acknowledgement may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right,
(b) the word ‘signed’ means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf, and
(c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.”
8. From a perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 18 it is evident that to invoke this provision:
(1) there must be an acknowledgement of liability in respect of property or right;
(2) the acknowledgement must be in writing signed by the party against whom such right or property is claimed (or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability; and
(3) the acknowledgement must be made before the expiration of the period prescribed for a suit or application (other than application for the execution of a decree) in respect of such property or right.
The effect of such an acknowledgement is that a fresh period of limitation has to be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed.
9. Sub-section (2) permits giving of oral evidence at the trial of the suit where the acknowledgement is undated but it prohibits, subject to the provisions of the Evidence Act, receiving of oral evidence of contents of the acknowledgement. Clause (a) of the explanation appended to that section says that an acknowledgement may be sufficient for purposes of Section 18 even though,
(i) it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right;
(ii) it avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come;
(iii) it is accompanied by refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy;
(iv) it is coupled with a claim to set off, or
(v) it is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right.
Clause (b) of the explanation defines the word “signed” to mean signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in that behalf.
10. It may be noted that for treating a writing signed by the party as an acknowledgement, the person acknowledging must be conscious of his liability and the commitment should be made towards that liability. It need not be specific but if necessary facts which constitute the liability are admitted an acknowledgement may be inferred from such an admission.
11. Here it is necessary to refer to the said documents—Exhibits B-4 and A-8. The trial court as well as the High Court accepted the plea of the respondent and held that the period of limitation would start from 19-9-1974 (Exhibit A-8) and the suit was within limitation. Both the Courts relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Harrisons & Crossfield Ltd. v. State of Kerala. It is laid down therein that it was not necessary that there should be a specific and direct acknowledgement of the particular liability which is sought to be enforced; if there was an admission of facts of which the liability in question was a necessary consequence then there would be an acknowledgement within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act of 1908. It is not the correctness of the proposition but its application that is in dispute.
12. Exhibit B-4 is a government order, GR (Rt) 1516/74.AD dated 27-6-1974. It reads:
“Forests—Trivandrum Division—Sale of residual growth—Agreement dated 15-1-1974 with Shri T.M Chacko—Damage caused by fire—Extension of period of contract free of penalty etc.—Sanction—Accorded.
agriculture (forest) department gr (rt) 1516/74.AD dated 27-6-1974
Read: Letter No. C1-10628/74 dated 9-5-1974 from the Chief Conservator of Forests.
Order
The right of collection and removal of the residual tree growth in sub-coupe VII of Coupe X, Palode Reserve, Paruthipally Range was awarded to Shri T.M Chacko for Rs. 75,000. He had executed an agreement on 15.1.1974, the period of contract being up to 31-3-1974. An accidental fire occurred in the coupe on 21-2-1974 causing heaving damage to the coupe. The contractor has therefore requested the Chief Conservator of Forests, to compensate the loss caused to him by fixing the fiscal amount of the coupe at 150% of the departmental valuation. After consideration of the whole aspect of the case and precedents in the matter, the Chief Conservator of Forests has recommended to the Government to extend the period of contract by one month from the date of order free of penalty and also to grant the contractor 15 days' time to remit the balance value of the coupe (viz. Rs. 25,000) without penal interest.
2. Government have considered the question in all its aspect and are pleased to extend as a special case the period of contract for removal of the produce, by 45 days from the date of order free of penalty and to grant one month from the date of order for the remittance of balance value of the coupe free of interest.
By order of the Governor
Sd/-
K.K Gopalan
Deputy Secretary to Government”
In the said order the representation of the respondent, Exhibit B-2, was under consideration of the appellant. A perusal of the said representation makes it clear that the claim was for remission of the bid amount by 150% (though the learned counsel for the respondent says that it is only fifteen per cent) and the claim of the respondent for recovery of the bid amount was not under its consideration.
13. Exhibit A-8 is a copy of the proceedings of the Divisional Forest Officer intimating to the respondent that as he failed to remit the balance of the bid amount and did not remove the forest produce in terms of the order of the Government, Exhibit B-4, the unremoved forest produce was confiscated and would be auctioned at the risk and loss of the respondent. On a careful reading of this letter we are unable to find that the claim of refund of bid amount by the respondent was the subject of consideration nor can we infer any acknowledgement of liability of that claim by the authority concerned.
14. We have also support for our view from the decision of this Court in Shapoor Fredoom Mazda v. Durga Prosad Chamaria AIR 1961 SC 1236. While interpreting Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 this Court pointed out the essentials of acknowledgement thereunder and observed that acknowledgement as prescribed by Section 19 was a mere acknowledgement of the liability in respect of the right in question and that it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or by implication. It was held that the statement on which a plea of acknowledgement was based must relate to a present subsisting liability though the exact nature or the specific character of the said liability might not be indicated in words; if words used in the acknowledgement indicated the existence of jural relationship between the parties, such as that of debtor or creditor and the statement was made with the express intention to admit such jural relationship or if such intention could be inferred by implication from the nature of the admission, the acknowledgement of liability would follow.
15. We have already indicated above that neither was the claim of refund of bid amount under consideration of the appellant nor can Exhibit B-4 or Exhibit A-8 be treated as acknowledgement of the liability of that claim of the respondent. Therefore, Section 18 of the Limitation Act cannot be called in aid to compute fresh limitation from the date of Exhibit A-8 i.e 19-9-1974. That being the position, the suit is clearly barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed.
16. The second contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the fact that the period to perform the contract was extended by the appellant till 10-8-1974 so the failure date should be taken as 10-8-1974, as such the suit will be within limitation, has to be mentioned only to be rejected for reasons more than one. First, it is a new point which was never argued before the trial court or the High Court; and secondly, the suit is not based on failure of the respondent to perform his part of the contract in which case it would not be a case of frustration of the contract but would be a case of breach of contract which does not entitle the respondent to claim refund of the bid amount. Therefore, there would be no cause of action for the suit itself. It is a self-defeating argument.
17. For all these reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court confirming the judgment of the trial court is set aside. The suit of the respondent shall stand dismissed. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
Alert