Skip to content


Chidambara Nadar and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Aiyangar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1898)8MLJ61
AppellantChidambara Nadar and anr.
RespondentSrinivasa Aiyangar
Cases Referred(Bassu Kuar v. Dhum Singh I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....time when the plaintiff first sought to enforce his tight by bringing his action for specific performance. the money was then repayable at once if the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for specific performance, and in that very action he could have recovered it. the general rule is that every suit speaks from the date of plaint and not from the date of the decree though there may be cases (of which this certainly is not one) in which limitation may begin to run from the date of the decree and not the plaint (bassu kuar v. dhum singh i.l.r. 11 a. 47. the decree of the district judge is reversed and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs throughout.
Judgment:

Boddam, J.

The District Judge is wrong. The plaintiff's present claim for repayment of the deposit money forms part of the damages he might and should have claimed alternatively in his action for specifics performance. Even if this were not so, the plaintiff's action is barred; for the statute begins to run from the time when the plaintiff first sought to enforce his tight by bringing his action for specific performance. The money was then repayable at once if the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for specific performance, and in that very action he could have recovered it. The general rule is that every suit speaks from the date of plaint and not from the date of the decree though there may be cases (of which this certainly is not one) in which limitation may begin to run from the date of the decree and not the plaint (Bassu Kuar v. Dhum Singh I.L.R. 11 A. 47. The decree of the District Judge is reversed and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //