http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER: HIRALAL AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT: BADKULAL AND OTHERS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/03/1953
BENCH: MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND BENCH: MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.
CITATION: 1953 AIR 225 1953 SCR 758 CITATOR INFO : R 1961 SC1316 (7)
ACT: Acknowledgment- Whether gives fresh cause of action-Practice -Party in possession of documentary evidence-Duty produce.
HEADNOTE: Where the defendants who had dealings with the plaintiffs for several years signed the following entry in the plaintiffs’ account book underneath the earlier entries: "After adjusting the accounts Rs. 34,000 found correct payable Held, that this amounted to an unqualified acknowledgment of liability to pay and implied a promise to pay and could be made the basis of the suit and gave rise to a fresh cause of action. Maniram v. Seth Rup Chand (33 I.A. 165), Fateh Chand v. Ganga Singh (I.L.R. 10 Lah. 745) and Kahan Chand Dularam v. Dayalal Amritlal (I.L.R. 10 Lah. 748) relied on. Ghulam Murtuza v. Fasihunnissa (I.L.R. 57 All. 434) overruled. It is not a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the court written evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the mere doctrine of onus of proof. Murugesam Pillai v. Manickavasaka Pandara (44 I....