Skip to content


Guntupalli Ramanna and ors. Vs. Guntupalli Annamma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1913)24MLJ183
AppellantGuntupalli Ramanna and ors.
RespondentGuntupalli Annamma and ors.
Cases ReferredRani Anand Kunwar v. The Court of Wards I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....on the part of the next reversioner his right of suit should be taken to accrue not on the date of alienation but on the date of collusion. we do not understand the judgment in that case to lay down anything of the kind but merely that where the next reversioner has colluded, a remoter reversioner may take his place in bringing the suit. however this may be, in the present case the plaint even as amended does not show the ground of exemption from limitation as required by order vii rule 6 civil procedure code. the amended paragraph no. 5 does not set out how or when the nearest reversioner (3rd defendant) colluded with 1st defendant but merely that the plaintiffs came to know of his collusion in 1903.2. we therefore hold the suit to be time barred and dismiss the appeal with.....
Judgment:

1. In our opinion the District Judge has rightly held the suit to be barred by limitation. It is a suit by a remote reversioner to declare that an alienation by a Hindu widow dated 28th July 1898 is not binding on the reversioners after her life time and it is filed in 1908. Such a suit cannot in our opinion be brought within the scope of Article 125 even by allegations of collusion on the part of the nearest reversioners. Our attention has been drawn to the Full Bench Judgment in Chiruvolu Ponnamma v. Chiruvolu Perraju I.L.R.(1905) M. 390 but their Lordships in that case refrain from expressing a definite opinion as to whether Article 120 or 125 applies. The Judgment in S.A. 281 of 99 Kalavathal v. Thiruppathi Pallavarayan : (1900)10MLJ229 is distinct authority that Article 125 does not apply and we concur in that view. The only alternative article is Article 120 which allows a period of 6 years after the right to sue accrues. Ordinarily the right to sue in a case of this nature must, be taken to accrue at the date of the alienation and in the plaint as orginally filed this is the date given as the cause of action. It is argued for the appellants that under the ruling in Rani Anand Kunwar v. The Court of Wards I.L.R. (1880) C. 764 where a remote reversioner sues alleging collusion on the part of the next reversioner his right of suit should be taken to accrue not on the date of alienation but on the date of collusion. We do not understand the Judgment in that case to lay down anything of the kind but merely that where the next reversioner has colluded, a remoter reversioner may take his place in bringing the suit. However this may be, in the present case the plaint even as amended does not show the ground of exemption from limitation as required by Order VII rule 6 Civil Procedure Code. The amended paragraph No. 5 does not set out how or when the nearest reversioner (3rd defendant) colluded with 1st defendant but merely that the plaintiffs came to know of his collusion in 1903.

2. We therefore hold the suit to be time barred and dismiss the appeal with costs.


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