Skip to content


Ambalavana Pandaram Vs. Vaguran Alias Muthian and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1895)5MLJ228
AppellantAmbalavana Pandaram
RespondentVaguran Alias Muthian and ors.
Cases ReferredRamasami Chetti v. Lokkanada Chetti S.A. No.
Excerpt:
- - 737 this decision is however, not reported in the authorized law reports and is consequently not a binding authority, see act xviii of 1875, section 3. were it otherwise, we should have felt it our duty to have referred the question for decision by the full bench as we are very clearly of opinion that the decision referred to is erroneous......referred the question for decision by the full bench as we are very clearly of opinion that the decision referred to is erroneous. in our opinion a contract 'which has in fact been-registered is no less a ' contract in writing registered ' within the meaning of article 116 because it bears the signature of only one of the parties--in the absence of any statutory provision requiring the signatures of both parties.2. we are of opinion that the registration in the present case is sufficient to bring the present suit within the provisions of article 116 and consequently the claim for the rent for fashes 1295 and 1296 is not barred.3. we must set aside the decree of the subordinate judge and restore that of the district munsif.4. appellant will have his costs in this court and in the lower.....
Judgment:

1. The only question is whether the claim for rent more than three years prior to suit is time-barred. Plaintiff's contention is that it is not, as the document is registered and therefore Article 116 is applicable--the rent being, for a period within six years prior to the suit. The Subordinate Judge has held Article 116 to be inapplicable on the authority of the decision of Kernan and Brandt, J.J., in Ramasami Chetti v. Lokkanada Chetti S.A. No. 227 of 1887 which is reported in 1 M. L. J. 737 This decision is however, not reported in the authorized Law Reports and is consequently not a binding authority, see Act XVIII of 1875, Section 3. Were it otherwise, we should have felt it our duty to have referred the question for decision by the Full Bench as we are very clearly of opinion that the decision referred to is erroneous. In our opinion a contract 'which has in fact been-registered is no less a ' contract in writing registered ' within the meaning of Article 116 because it bears the signature of only one of the parties--in the absence of any statutory provision requiring the signatures of both parties.

2. We are of opinion that the registration in the present case is sufficient to bring the present suit within the provisions of Article 116 and consequently the claim for the rent for Fashes 1295 and 1296 is not barred.

3. We must set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif.

4. Appellant will have his costs in this Court and in the Lower Appellate Court.


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