The appellant is the plaintiff. The respondents, who are father and son, are the defendants. The appellant prayed for recovery of Rs.34,940/- on the allegation that the respondents executed in his favour a demand promissory note for Rs.32,000/- on 27.08.1992 undertaking to repay it with interest at 12% per annum and in spite of demand they failed to pay the amount. The amount of Rs.32,000/- includes the price of gold the respondents had allegedly borrowed from the appellant. In the written statement the respondents contended that they did not borrow any amount on 27.08.1992 and the claim is false. According to them the appellant kept the second respondent in illegal confinement and he and the first respondent were coerced into executing the promissory note. 2. The trial court rejected the contention that the promissory note was executed in vitiating circumstances. It found that the amount of Rs.32,000/- for which the promissory note was executed falls under three heads:
(1) Rs.10,000/- which was the price of the gold ornaments the respondents had purchased from the appellant in connection with the marriage of the first respondent's daughter, (2) Rs.2,000/- which was the interest on the above amount of Rs.10,000/- and (3) Rs.20,000/- which was the amount the respondents borrowed on the date of the execution of the promissory note.
3. The marriage of the first respondent's daughter was solemnized on 25.08.1989. The gold ornaments were purchased a few days before it. The suit was instituted on 09.03.1993. So the purchase of gold was more than three years before the institution of the suit. The trial court took the view that the claim of Rs.10,000/- towards the price of the gold ornaments is time barred and it is not recoverable. Consequently, the claim for the interest payable on the said amount also disallowed. It passed a decree for Rs.20,000/- only.
4. The trial court failed to take notice of the provision in Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act. Under that provision a promise to pay a time barred debt is a valid consideration and the contract is valid if it is in writing. Ext.A1 promissory note contains an express promise to pay the amount. So under Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act, the appellant is entitled to recover the amount payable towards the price of the gold ornaments. Its interest also can be recovered. The lower court went wrong in holding that the claim is time barred. The appellant is entitled to recover Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) in addition to the amount of Rs.20,000/- for which it has passed a decree.
In the result this appeal is allowed. The judgment and the decree of the trial court are set aside to the extent it has refused to allow the appellant to recover Rs.12,000/-. A modified decree is passed as follows:
The appellant is allowed to recover from the respondents Rs.34,940/- (Rupees thirty four thousand nine hundred and forty only) with interest on Rs.32,000/- at 6% per annum from 09.03.1993 till realization. The appellant is entitled to his costs in the suit. The parties will bear their costs in the appeal.
Sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/