Vencheswara Sastri v. Narayana Ayyar

This case is fully covered by the decision in Rakkappan Ambalam v. Suppiah Ambalam . Here as in that case the promissory note dated 14th May, 1924, consists of two parts and is as follows:

“Rs. 500:—I, Narayana Iyer son of Vanchi Pattar of Kavasseri Ottupura Gramam hereby promise to pay Vancheswara Sastri son of Gopalakrishna Pattar of Kavasseri Ottupura Gramam or order the above sum Rs. 500 with interest at 7½ per cent per annum; I have received full consideration by adjustment of the sums which I owe you namely Rs. 300 due to you by me on the occasion of your marriage with Lakshmi my grand-daughter for her jewels; Rs. 200 due for cloths, silks and vessels for the sixth mouth ceremony and nuptials.”

The former part of the instrument which is the promissory note is inadmissible as it is insufficiently stamped. But, the latter part contains an express acknowledgment of a prior liability and is admissible as such to save limitation.

It is found that on 2nd May, 1926, the defendant signed an entry on the promissory note written in the handwriting of his son stating that in April 1925 Rs. 25 had been sent by money order and that Rs. 12-8-0 was paid on that date making, up Rs. 37-8-0 on account of interest for one year.

The learned Subordinate Judge says that this entry does not save limitation as a payment of interest because there was no agreement for interest at the time of the marriage and the nuptials and sixth month ceremony. He is clearly wrong because it is enough if there was any subsequent agreement for interest as to which the payment itself is the best evidence.

The suit was clearly in time. The decree of the lower Court is Bet aside and there will be a decree as prayed with costs in both Courts.

N. R. R.Decree set aside.