Skip to content


Chinnaya Nayudu Vs. Gurunatham Chetti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Contract
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1882)ILR5Mad169
AppellantChinnaya Nayudu
RespondentGurunatham Chetti
Excerpt:
limitation act, section 19 - hindu law--authority of manager to keep debt alive by acknowledgment, to revive barred debts. - charles a. turner, kt., c.j.1. the bond of may 1874 is not expressed as binding on the family, and if it had been so expressed, it would not have affected with liability any but the persons who executed it. a manager has authority to make payments for the family; he has the same authority to acknowledge as he has to create debts, but he has no power to revive a claim barred by limitation, unless he is expressly authorized to do so; and on the 17th may 1874 the debt acknowledged in april 1870 had become barred.2. the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. The bond of May 1874 is not expressed as binding on the family, and if it had been so expressed, it would not have affected with liability any but the persons who executed it. A manager has authority to make payments for the family; he has the same authority to acknowledge as he has to create debts, but he has no power to revive a claim barred by limitation, unless he is expressly authorized to do so; and on the 17th May 1874 the debt acknowledged in April 1870 had become barred.

2. The appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.


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