Murugupillai vs Muttelingam – clr volume 3 page 092

In Murugupillai (plaintiff) v. Mutterlingam (defendant), the court addressed whether an action for the price of goods sold and delivered was barred by limitation under the law of prescription, with specific reference to part payments as potential acknowledgments of debt and the procedural implications of abatement orders. The findings established that the suit, though initiated while the defendant was abroad, did not escape the bar of limitation due to insufficient proof of qualifying part payments. The principle was reaffirmed that part payment must inherently carry an implied promise to pay the outstanding balance, as established by legal authorities such as Cleasby, B.; the mere act of payment, unsupported by adequate corroborative evidence, does not interrupt prescription. Consequently