Ramaswami Pillai vs Kuppuswami Pillai on 18 February, 1910

JUDGMENT

1. I agree with the decision in Gobind Das v. Sarju Das (1908) I.L.R. 30 A. 268 which is in point. Even if the acknowledgment “balance due 80 rupees” implies a promise, it does not seem to me to be the promise required by Section 25 of the Contract Act. There is nothing to show that the debtor recognized that the debt was irrecoverable and still promised to pay it, and the promise to which Section 25 refers seems to me to be a promise to pay despite the consciousness that the debt is barred. The petition is dismissed with costs.