Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Harendra Chandra Bhattacharjee Vs. Gagan Chandra Das

Harendra Chandra Bhattacharjee vs Gagan Chandra Das

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jun 05, 1916
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/852985

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Limitation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 20 - Payment of a sum on decree for money not hearing interest, effect of--Application to certify payment under decree, if controls Section 20. -

Key legal issue
Limitation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Harendra Chandra Bhattacharjee

Respondent

Gagan Chandra Das

Legal References

Reported In
35Ind.Cas.177

Excerpt

limitation act (ix of 1908), section 20 - payment of a sum on decree for money not hearing interest, effect of--application to certify payment under decree, if controls section 20. - 1. this is a reference made in connection with an application for execution of a decree passed on the 19th december 1911. this application was the second application for the execution of the decree, and it was made on the 28th january 1916--more than three years after the first application which was made on the 7th january 1913. the decree-holder, however, alleged that there was a payment of re. 1 by the judgment-debtor on the 27th august 1915, that is, within three years of the first application for execution. it has been found by the munsif that the payment of re. 1 was, in fact, made by the judgment-debtor as alleged by the decree-holder. but there is nothing to show that it was paid by way of interest and the decree did not bear any interest. we are of opinion that, although the decree-holder may either apply to certify the payment before execution or may do so in his application for execution of the decree, the provisions of section 20 of the indian limitation act are in no way affected by it. the claim in the original suit, no doubt, included interest; but that interest had been rightly held by the munsif to have merged in the decree and, as the decree did not bear any interest, any payment made by the judgment-debtor must be taken to have been made in part payment of the principal, in which case it must appear in the handwriting of the judgment-debtor or by his agent duly authorized in this behalf, in order that a fresh period of limitation may run from the date of such payment under section 20 of the limitation act. let the records be sent back.

Full Judgment

1. This is a reference made in connection with an application for execution of a decree passed on the 19th December 1911. This application was the second application for the execution of the decree, and it was made on the 28th January 1916--more than three years after the first application which was made on the 7th January 1913. The decree-holder, however, alleged that there was a payment of Re. 1 by the judgment-debtor on the 27th August 1915, that is, within three years of the first application for execution. It has been found by the Munsif that the payment of Re. 1 was, in fact, made by the judgment-debtor as alleged by the decree-holder. But there is nothing to show that it was paid by way of interest and the decree did not bear any interest. We are of opinion that, although the decree-holder may either apply to certify the payment before execution or may do so in his application for execution of the decree, the provisions of Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act are in no way affected by it. The claim in the original suit, no doubt, included interest; but that interest had been rightly held by the Munsif to have merged in the decree and, as the decree did not bear any interest, any payment made by the judgment-debtor must be taken to have been made in part payment of the principal, in which case it must appear in the handwriting of the judgment-debtor or by his agent duly authorized in this behalf, in order that a fresh period of limitation may run from the date of such payment under Section 20 of the Limitation Act. Let the records be sent back.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial