LAHORE HIGH COURT
Fateh Mahommed
Vs
Ganga Singh
(Skemp, J.)
08.02.1929
JUDGMENT
Skemp, J.
1. In this case the plaintiff sued on the basis of a balance and the lower Courts dismissed the suit relying on Pala Mal v. Tulla Ram1,. and holding that a mere balance does not imply a promise to pay and therefore does not support a suit.
2. The Privy Council ruling Mani Ram Seth v. Seth Rup Chand2 was not brought to the attention of the Courts below. Their Lordships were dealing with an expression which they held to be an acknowledgment under Section 19, Limitation Act; but in the course of their judgment, at p. 1058 it is said that the rule in India is the same as in England and that an unconditional acknowledgment always implies a promise to pay as the natural inference and what every honest man would mean to do.
3. The learned Judges who decided the Punjab Chief Court case relied on earlier rulings of the Chief Court and also upon Ranchhoddas Nathubai v. Jeychand Khushal Chand3 This Bombay case was followed in Shankar v. Mukta4 but a later ruling of the Bombay High Court Chuni Lal Rattan Chandra Gujrathi v. Laxman Govind Dube5 allowed the acknowledgment then in question to form the basis of a suit on the ground the Privy Council judgment Mani Ram Seth v. Seth Rup Chand6 virtually overruled Shankar v. Mukta7 Similarly the decision in Pala Mal v. Tulla Ram 1908. 119 P.R.(Supra) , cannot now be regarded as good law. We must now follow the rule laid down in Mani Ram Seth v. Seth Rup Chand [1906] 33 Cal. 1047(Supra), namely, that an unconditional acknowledgment implies a promise to pay.
4. The appeal must therefore, be accepted and the suit remanded to the Court of the District Judge for a finding on the issue, whether the defendant is entitled to reduction of interest, which was left undecided. Stamp on appeal to be refunded: other costs to be costs in the litigation.
1[1908] 119 P.R 3[1884] 8 Bom. 405 5 A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 183
2[1906] 33 Cal. 1047 4[1898] 22 Bom. 513 61906. 33 Cal. 1047
71898. 22 Bom. 513.