Skip to content


Nilakanta Rotho and anr. Vs. Gongapani Panda and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1898)8MLJ217
AppellantNilakanta Rotho and anr.
RespondentGongapani Panda and ors.
Cases ReferredRangasami v. Muthukumarappa I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - 509. we do not think this case precludes the point being argued in this court, and we have no doubt that the case is governed by the recent ruling of the full bench above referred to, namely, that article 147 of the 2nd schedule of the limitation act is not applicable to a case like the present in which no prayer for fore -closure or sale, in the alternative is or could be made......ruling of the full bench above referred to, namely, that article 147 of the 2nd schedule of the limitation act is not applicable to a case like the present in which no prayer for fore - closure or sale, in the alternative is or could be made. the article applicable must, therefore, be 132 and under that, the suit is undoubtedly barred.2. we must, therefore, reverse the decree of the court below and dismiss the plaintiffs' suit with costs.
Judgment:

1. It is argued that the suit was barred by limitation in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in Ramachandra Bayaguru v. Modhu Padhi, I.L.R., 21 M., 326 . The respondent's vakil argues that the plea of limitation was given up. It is, however, clear from the facts as they appear on the record and from the affidavit of the pleader engaged that the point of law was given up simply because the pleader thought that he could not argue it in the face of the decision in Rangasami v. Muthukumarappa I.L.R. 10 M. 509. We do not think this case precludes the point being argued in this Court, and we have no doubt that the case is governed by the recent ruling of the Full Bench above referred to, namely, that Article 147 of the 2nd Schedule of the Limitation Act is not applicable to a case like the present in which no prayer for fore - closure or sale, in the alternative is or could be made. The Article applicable must, therefore, be 132 and under that, the suit is undoubtedly barred.

2. We must, therefore, reverse the decree of the Court below and dismiss the plaintiffs' suit with costs.


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