R.G.Selvanarayanan Vs R.N.Krishnakumar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

R.G.Selvanarayanan Vs R.N.Krishnakumar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.177 of 2014 set aside; suit O.S.No.177 of 2014 dismissed; no order as to costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.No.15295 of 2022) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether Ex.A5 and Ex.A14 are proof for acknowledgement of debt so as to save limitation? +4 more

Court's answer

Ex.A3 (dated 07.03.2009, prior to the agreement Ex.A2 dated 20.03.2009) and Ex.A4 can only be quotations, not a final bill for work done; a document predating the agreement can never be the bill amount payable for future work.

Ratio / Principle

An acknowledgement of debt must be from the debtor himself or his authorised representative; the initials said to be of the defendant's Manager on Ex.A5 and Ex.A14, without established authorisation, do not constitute an acknowledgement binding the defendant.

Key takeaways

A stray statement in cross-examination that the defendant's Manager also used to tender payments to the plaintiff is not proof of authorisation to acknowledge the debt.ratio¶21
A self-serving document created by the plaintiff (his own ledger entries and receipt) cannot be evidence to save a time-barred debt or fasten liability on the defendant.ratio¶21
The precedents upholding promises to pay time-barred debts (Hiralal v. Dadku Lal, AIR 1953 SC 225; Sureshchandra Co. v. Vadneree Chemical Works, AIR 1991 Bom 44) can be relied upon only where the acknowledgement is proved true and genuine; here the acknowledgement is by the Manager, the documents are from the plaintiff's custody, and the defendant denies execution and authorisation, so the trial Court erred in invoking them.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

A.S.No.393 of 2022 (& C.M.P.No.15295 of 2022), High Court of Judicature at Madras; reserved 04.07.2025, pronounced 21.07.2025; coram: Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran (sole judge, author). Appeal under Section 96 CPC by the defendant, R.G. Selvanarayanan, against the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2019 of the 1st Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in O.S.No.177 of 2014, whereby plaintiff-builder R.N. Krishnakumar (N.S.K. Associates) was granted a money decree of Rs.13,30,637/- with interest (9% p.a. on Rs.11,07,751/- from plaint date 06.05.2014 to decree date 11.06.2019, 6% thereafter) as balance for constructing a godown and ancillary works under the agreement dated 20.03.2009. Points determined: (i) whether Ex.A5 (plaintiff's ledger) and Ex.A14 (stamped receipt) prove an acknowledgement of debt saving limitation; (ii) whether Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 ascertain the value of work done. Held: an acknowledgement of debt must be from the debtor himself or his authorised representative; the Manager's initials without proven authorisation, a stray cross-examination admission of occasional payments, and plaintiff-created self-serving documents do not save the time-barred debt; Hiralal v. Dadku Lal (AIR 1953 SC 225) and Sureshchandra Co. v. Vadneree Chemical Works (AIR 1991 Bom 44) are distinguishable, applying only where the acknowledgement is proved true and genuine, and the plaintiff's failure to produce these documents in the overlapping suit O.S.No.323 of 2012 belies their genuineness. Ex.A3 (dated 07.03.2009, prior to the agreement) and Ex.A4 are quotations, not invoices; the trial Court's award of Rs.11,57,751/- on their basis is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. Appeal allowed; trial judgment and decree set aside; suit dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.