AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramakrishnan, J.—This is a revision petition filed under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, against the decision of the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, in S. C. S. No. 786 of 1958. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 227-8-6 with subsequent interest and costs. The plaintiff was an ex-employee of the defendant Devastanam. He was employed as an accountant on a salary of Rs. 50 per menses for about two years prior to 1955. He had deposited with the defendant a sum of Rs. 200 at the time of his appointment. A sum of Rs. 148 by way of salary for the months of November and December 1954 and January 1955 was due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had spent a sum of Rs. 591 from the funds of the Devastanam in connection with, the festivals of the temple. When the authorities of the Devastanam objected to the same on the ground that the expenditure was not supported by vouchers, the plaintiff produced vouchers only for a sum of Rs. 169-6-6 and deposited a sum of Rs. 300 in cash. He did not produce vouchers for the balance of Rs. 121-9-6. When plaintiff requested that he should be paid the balance due to him as also the amount of Rs. 169-6-6 for which he was able to produce vouchers, the matter was placed before the meeting of the Board of Trustees on 7th November 1957, and the following Resolution was passed by the Board of Trustees:
Translated, this means :
According to account a sum of Rs. 58-7-3 is due to him (C. Navaneetham Naidu). In addition Rs. 169-6-6 as per vouchers have also to be paid to him. The amount due under the above vouchers relate to the period when the prior Executive Officer Tiru Ramiah Naidu was functioning. According to the order passed by the said Executive Officer, the report of the Manager and Peishkar would be sent to him and as soon as he gives his approval the entire amount would be paid to him after obtaining the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner.
The learned District Munsif gave a decree for the amount of Rs. 58-7-3 only. In regard to the second item of Rs. 169-6-6 mentioned above, it is the admitted case that it related to a period more than three years prior to the date of suit viz., 17th April 1958 and the claim in respect of that sum would be in time only if the above extracted resolution of the Board of Trustees would constitute a valid acknowledgment of liability made on 7th November 1957. The view of the learned District Munsif was that the above resolution did not amount to an unconditional acknowledgment of liability, because that asset was to be paid only subject to the approval of the genuineness of the vouchers by Ramia Naidu, the Executive Officer and after the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner and therefore the claim was barred by limitation. Against this decision the present revision petition is filed by the plaintiff.
The only ground urged is that the above resolution dated 7th November, 1957 would amount to an acknowledgment of liability and save limitation in respect of the claim of Rs. 169-6-6. It was urged that the first portion of the resolution where the trustees say that in accordance with the vouchers a sum of Rs. 169-6-6 was due to the plaintiff, is complete by itself as an acknowledgment, and the fact that the resolution also states that the sanction of certain other officers would be obtained and then the amount would be paid, would not take away the effect of the earlier acknowledgment. The learned Counsel also referred to the fact that in the latter part of the resolution the Trustees had specifically stated that they had resolved to pay off the entire amount.
The question whether an acknowledgment in a particular form of recital, constituted a conditional or an unconditional acknowledgment is a question which depends upon the circumstances of each case. A reading of the Resolution shows that so far as the Trustees were concerned, they had no doubt in their minds that the entire amount due under the vouchers was payable to the plaintiff. This could be seen from the circumstance that in the earlier part of the Resolution they have stated unequivocally that the amount of Rs. 169-6-6 was payable to the plaintiff. In the final part of the Resolution they say that after obtaining the approval of Ramiah Naidu and after obtaining the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner, they would pay the entire amount If it was the intention of the Trustees that they had doubt regarding their liability to pay any portion of this amount, they would have made it clear in the Resolution that the actual amount they would be liable to pay, would be the amount which either the Executive Officer Raminh Naidu or the Deputy Commissioner would decide to be the correct amount after scrutiny of the vouchers. But this is not the purport of the resolution. Its purport is that while the Trustees admitted that the entire amount was due to the plaintiff, in view of certain circumstances they felt that the actual payment should await the sanction of certain authorities.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision of the Nagpur High Court in Fatechand v. Wasudeo ILR 1947 Nag. 477, which dealt with the case of an agreement the first part of which contained an unqualified admission of the fact that the defendants purchased from the plaintiffs goods and that a difference cropped up in the account in respect of those dealings. It was observed by the learned Judges in that case that the legal effect of such an admission was that whoever on account should be shown to be the debtor was bound to pay the debt to the other. There was a further recital in the document about a condition that the liability should be ascertained by the arbitrators appointed under that document, and it was contended that this amounted to a conditional admission. The learned Judges observed that this contention was not sound and that the acknowledgment contained in the agreement was not subject to a condition that the defendant would be liable only if the liability was ascertained by the arbitrators. Though the facts in that case are not exactly the same, the main question for consideration in this case is whether the first part of the document contained an acknowledgment of liability which would save the plaintiff''s claim from the bar of limitation and if so, whether the subsequent recital that payment would be made after sanction had been obtained from certain authorities, would make it only a conditional acknowledgment. In my view, a perusal of the document shows that the acknowledgment of liability was unconditional, and that the provision for addressing certain authorities for obtaining sanction before payment was made, would not make the acknowledgment a conditional one.
It was also mentioned before me and it is also found in the judgment of the Court below, that the Trustees did write to Ramiah Naidu, the prior Executive Officer but he would not take the responsibility of expressing any opinion on the reference made to him and wrote back that the Trustees must make their own arrangements for the scrutiny of the vouchers produced by the plaintiff and determine whether they were genuine or not. Nothing was mentioned about the Trustees writing to the Deputy Commissioner of the Endowments Board for sanction for the payment.
In view of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that this revision petition should be allowed. The acknowledgment in question is held to be a valid acknowledgment, saving the plaintiff''s claim from the bar of limitation. This revision petition is allowed with costs. The plaintiff will be entitled to a decree as prayed for, in respect of the two amounts mentioned above.