Shapoor Fredoom Mazda v Durga Prosad Chamaria (1961)

CPC & Limitation Act · Adverse Possession, Extinguishment of Right (s.27) & Distinction from Estoppel

Facts.

A writing said to acknowledge a debt did not admit the exact amount or expressly promise to pay; its sufficiency as an acknowledgment under s.18 was challenged.

Issue.

Must an acknowledgment under s.18 admit the precise liability or promise payment, or is a lesser admission enough?

Held.

An acknowledgment need not admit the exact liability or contain a promise to pay; it is enough that it admits a subsisting jural relationship (a present debtor–creditor relationship), even if accompanied by a refusal to pay.

Why it matters.

Defines the content of a valid acknowledgment under s.18 (Topic 6) — a live, present liability, not necessarily an exact figure.

📄 Full CPC & Limitation Act notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · All landmark cases · All CPC & Limitation Act topics