K.K. Mathew, J.
1. The only question raised in this civil revision petition is one of limitation lot a suit instituted by a non-prized subscriber for recovery of his paid up subscriptions in a chitty. The argument of counsel for the petitioner was that the lower Court went wrong in applying Article 116 of the Indian Limitation Act and holding that the suit was not barred by limitation. The chitty was registered under the Travancore Chitties Act, and the suit has been filed within six years from the date of the termination of the chitty. Article 116 of the Limitation Act reads as follows :-
periodbegins to run.
116.For compensation for the breach of acontract in writing registered.
When theperiod of limitation would begin to run against a suit brought on a similar contract not registered.
It is admitted that if Article 116 were to apply the suit was not barred by limitation.
2. Therefore the only question for consideration in this petition is whether Article 116 of the Indian Limitation Act will apply to the facts of the case. Counsel relied upon the ruling of the Madras High Court in Venkata Gurunadha Ram Seshayya v. Tripurisundari Cotton Press, Bezwada, ILR 49 Mad 468 : (AIR 1926 Mad 615) (FB) for the purpose of showing that the registration contemplated by Article 116 is a registration under the law for the time being in force in the State i. e., the Indian Registration Act, and that the law for registration of chitties is not a law for registration of any document containing a contract. I cannot agree. It cannot be said that the chitty variyola is not a contract in writing and that the law in force for the registration of chitties is not a law for the registration of that contract. I fail to understand why a chitty variyola which has been registered under a statute in force in the State should not be considered to be a contract in writing 'registered' as defined in the General Clauses Act. This line of reasoning found favour with the learned Judges in Antoni Pillai v. Ganaprakasam, 26 TravLJ 963. They were, there, considering the corresponding article of the Travancore Limitation Act. I prefer to follow the decision in that case. That ruling was followed in Thanumalayan v. Madevan, 28 Trav LJ 1152. In Kulamytheen Pillai v. Rosammal, 1949 Trav Co LR 88 this view seems to have been approved albeit by way of obiter. I see no reason why I should take a different view as no question of any principle is involved.
3. In this view the Civil Revision Petition isdismissed, but I make no order as to costs.