Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 19

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 19-"Acknowledgment" Definition-Document set up as an acknowledgment of liability -Rules of construction-[Province of West Pakistan v. Sind Purchas ing Board L. P. A. No. 25 of 1964 and Yacoob Habib Kaliya v. Messrs A. A. Sattar P L D 1958 Kar. 534 dissented from]. An acknowledgment is an admission by the writer that there is a debt owed by him. In order to take the case out of the statute of limitation, there must, upon the fair construction of the letter, read in the light of the surrounding circumstances, be an admission that the writer owes the debt. Next, some rules have to be observed in construing a document which is set up as an acknowledgment of liability. One principle is, that the Limitation Act being a statute in derogation of the right to sue, exceptions in the Act must be construed liberally. A writing claimed to be an acknowledgment must, therefore, be interpreted liberally, so as to maintain the right to sue rather than in negation or derogation of such right. This principle has been recognized in several cases. Another rule which has to be kept in mind is that an acknowledgment, like any other document, should be construed according to the intention of the parties, but this intention is the intention as revealed by the language of the body of the deed. If the deed is ambiguous, surrounding circumstances may be looked into, but it is not open to the parties to come to the Court to say that their intention was wholly different from that expressed in the language of the deed. This is the principle laid down by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and by the High Courts in this Sub-Continent in several decisions. Venkata v. Parthasaradhi I L R 16 Mad. 220; Hukumatsing Kundanmal v. Nenumal Rijhoomal A I R 1928 Sind 45; Shapoor Freedom Mazda v. Durga Prosad Chamarla and others A I R 1961 S C 1236; Tilak Ram and others v. Nathu and others A I R 1967 S C 935; Badri Das v. Manohar Das (1913) 201 C 10; K. Sheikh Meera Sahib & Co. v. Sheikh Nainar Lubbay Marcayar (1913) 21 I C 30; Rangaswami Chetti v. Thangavelu Chetti I L R 42 Mad. 637; Karamadai Naicken v. R. Raju Pillai and another A I R 1949 Mad.…