Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.

Madras High Court
Pattabhiramayya Naidu And Ors. vs Ramayya Naidu And Anr. on 16 September, 1896
Equivalent citations: (1897) ILR 20 Mad 23
Bench: A J Collins, Benson


1. The only plea urged before us is that the suit is barred under Articles 61 and 99, Schedule 2 of the Indian Limitation Act, on the ground that the suit was not brought until more than three year’s had elapsed from the realization of the money from plaintiffs by sale of their property by the Court.

2. We think that the words of Article 99 show that it cannot apply to a case like this where not the whole, but only a part, of the money due under a joint decree was realized from plaintiff’s.

3. We think, too, that it may be doubted whether Article 61 is applicable to the present case where there was no payment by plaintiffs, but where their property was seized and sold by the Court and the proceeds paid by the Court to the decree-holder. If, however, that article does apply, then we are disposed to adopt the view of the learned Judges in Fuckoruddeen Mahomed Ahsan v. Mohima Chunder Chowdhry I.L.R. 4 Cal. 529 and to hold that time begins to run from the date of the payment to the decree-holder, not from the date of the realization of the money by the Court. If Article 61 does not apply, then the case falls under the general Article No. 120, and the plaintiffs have six years within which to bring their suit. In any view, therefore, the suit is in time.

4. We confirm the decree of the lower Appellate Court and dismiss this second appeal with costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.150 seconds.