Skip to content


Pattabhiramayya Naidu and ors. Vs. Ramayya Naidu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR20Mad23
AppellantPattabhiramayya Naidu and ors.
RespondentRamayya Naidu and anr.
Cases ReferredFuckoruddeen Mahomed Ahsan v. Mohima Chunder Chowdhry I.L.R.
Excerpt:
limitation act xv of 1877, schedule ii, article 61, 99, 120 - decree for rent against tenants jointly--execution against one defendant--suit by him for contribution. - - 2. we think that the words of article 99 show that it cannot apply to a case like this where not the whole, but only a part, of the money due under a joint decree was realized from plaintiff's......that the suit was not brought until more than three year's had elapsed from the realization of the money from plaintiffs by sale of their property by the court.2. we think that the words of article 99 show that it cannot apply to a case like this where not the whole, but only a part, of the money due under a joint decree was realized from plaintiff's.3. we think, too, that it may be doubted whether article 61 is applicable to the present case where there was no payment by plaintiffs, but where their property was seized and sold by the court and the proceeds paid by the court to the decree-holder. if, however, that article does apply, then we are disposed to adopt the view of the learned judges in fuckoruddeen mahomed ahsan v. mohima chunder chowdhry i.l.r. 4 cal. 529 and to hold that.....
Judgment:

1. The only plea urged before us is that the suit is barred under Articles 61 and 99, Schedule 2 of the Indian Limitation Act, on the ground that the suit was not brought until more than three year's had elapsed from the realization of the money from plaintiffs by sale of their property by the Court.

2. We think that the words of Article 99 show that it cannot apply to a case like this where not the whole, but only a part, of the money due under a joint decree was realized from plaintiff's.

3. We think, too, that it may be doubted whether Article 61 is applicable to the present case where there was no payment by plaintiffs, but where their property was seized and sold by the Court and the proceeds paid by the Court to the decree-holder. If, however, that article does apply, then we are disposed to adopt the view of the learned Judges in Fuckoruddeen Mahomed Ahsan v. Mohima Chunder Chowdhry I.L.R. 4 Cal. 529 and to hold that time begins to run from the date of the payment to the decree-holder, not from the date of the realization of the money by the Court. If Article 61 does not apply, then the case falls under the general Article No. 120, and the plaintiffs have six years within which to bring their suit. In any view, therefore, the suit is in time.

4. We confirm the decree of the lower Appellate Court and dismiss this second appeal with costs.


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