Skip to content


Vayiravan Asary Vs. Ponniah and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1898)8MLJ151
AppellantVayiravan Asary
RespondentPonniah and ors.
Cases Referred(Ranga Reddi v. Chinna Reddi I.L. R.
Excerpt:
- section 16 (1) (c) :[tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] ready and willing to perform-concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before supreme court held, concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. section 20: [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] whether time is the essence of contract held, many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. 1. a wide meaning has, no doubt, been given to the words of article 116 of the schedule to the limitation act. but the present case--a suit for an account by one partner against another after dissolution of the partnership--in our opinion, is altogether beyond the scope of the article. the only case approching this one (ranga reddi v. chinna reddi i.l. r. 14 m. 165) is plainly distinguishable. we are not prepared to say that the article can be stretched to cover every case in which the plaintiffs claim may, in its origin, be referred to a contractual relation which is expressed in a registered agreement.2. the application is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. A wide meaning has, no doubt, been given to the words of Article 116 of the schedule to the Limitation Act. But the present case--a suit for an account by one partner against another after dissolution of the partnership--in our opinion, is altogether beyond the scope of the article. The only case approching this one (Ranga Reddi v. Chinna Reddi I.L. R. 14 M. 165) is plainly distinguishable. We are not prepared to say that the article can be stretched to cover every case in which the plaintiffs claim may, in its origin, be referred to a contractual relation which is expressed in a registered agreement.

2. The application is dismissed with costs.


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