JUDGMENT
1. This order be read in continuation of my earlier order dt. Feb. 20, 1984, whereby the issue, whether the suit is within limitation, was framed and the case was remanded to the trial Court for report after allowing the parties to produce necessary evidence on the said issue. The report of the trial Court dt. May 21, 1984, was received in this Court. The learned trial Court after discussing the entire evidence has given al firm finding that the date of the birth of the plaintiff was Nov. 30, 1956 and, therefore, the suit filed on Nov. 30, 1977, i.e., within three years after attaining the age of majority, was within time.
2. The learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that the said, finding of the trial Court was wrong. as according to. the learned counsel, the evidence has not been properly appreciated and inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration. However, I do not find any force in this contention. The entire evidence led by the parties has been discussed in detail and on that basis, a firm finding has been given that the date of birth of the plaintiff was Nov. 30, 1956.
3. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that even then, the suit was barred by time as the last date of limitation for filing the suit was Nov. 29, 1977, whereas it was filed on Nov. 30, 1977. However, no meaningful argument could be raised to support this contention. On the other hand. the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent relied upon Jacob v. Rosy, AIR 1976 Mad 399 and Sushila Devi v. Prem Kumar. AIR 1981 All 83, to contend that a person born on Dec. 8, 1957, would attain majority at midnight of Dec. 8, 1975, i.e., the first moment of 8th Dec. 1975. Apart from the above, S. 4 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875. provides,–
“4. Age of majority how computed.–In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day. and he shall be deemed to have attained majority. if he falls within the first para of S. 3, at the beginning of the twenty-first anniversary of that day, and if he falls within the second para of S. 3, at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day.
Illustrations-
(a) to (b) *** *** *** *** *** ***
(c) Z is born on the 1st of Jan. 1850. He acquires a domicile in India No guardian is appointed of his person or property by any Court of Justice, nor is he under the jurisdiction of any Court of Wards. Z attains majority at the first moment of the first day of Jan. 1868.”
From the said illustration, given above. it is quite evident that the plaintiff attained the majority on Nov. 30, 1974 and, thus, under S. 12(1) of the Limitation Act, that day has to be excluded and. therefore, the suit filed by him on Nov. 30, 1977, within three years of his attaining majority. was within time.
4. No other point arises, nor has been raised.
5. Consequently, this appeal fails and dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Appeal dismissed.
