Skip to content


Venkata Chinnaya Rau Vs. Krishna Charyalu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1898)8MLJ228
AppellantVenkata Chinnaya Rau
RespondentKrishna Charyalu
Excerpt:
- - 1. it is objected that there is no appeal because the claim is of a small cause nature,-but i am not satisfied that it is so......application is within time because it was made within three years of the date of the subordinate judge's decree.2. although the result in this particular case is somewhat anomalous, i think the district judge has come to a right conclusion. the original decree was one for money against both defendants; it imposed a joint liability upon them. there was an appeal and, therefore, according to article 179, schedule ii, limitation act, the date of the final decree of the appellate court, and not that of the original decree, had to be considered in applying the law of limitation. it is true that the final decree, namely, that of the high court, was a decree against the plaintiff which he therefore could not execute, but i do not think that can be allowed to make any difference. (see 3 c. l......
Judgment:

H.H. Shephard, C.J.

1. It is objected that there is no appeal because the claim is of a Small Cause nature,--but I am not satisfied that it is so. It was an action for fees, the liability for which, was fixed by an agreement. It was not an action on a bond as is suggested by the respondent's vakil. The main question is one of limitation. The suit was brought against two defendants, mother and daughter, and a decree was given against both. The mother died before an appeal was filed. The daughter appealed and her appeal was dismissed by the Subordinate Court. In second appeal to the High Court, the decree was reversed in her favour. It is now sought to execute the decree against the daughter as representative of her mother, the application having been made more than three years after date of the original decree. The District Judge has held that the application is within time because it was made within three years of the date of the Subordinate Judge's decree.

2. Although the result in this particular case is somewhat anomalous, I think the District Judge has come to a right conclusion. The original decree was one for money against both defendants; it imposed a joint liability upon them. There was an appeal and, therefore, according to Article 179, Schedule II, Limitation Act, the date of the final decree of the appellate Court, and not that of the original decree, had to be considered in applying the law of limitation. It is true that the final decree, namely, that of the High Court, was a decree against the plaintiff which he therefore could not execute, but I do not think that can be allowed to make any difference. (See 3 C. L. R., 430 approved in I. L. R., 25 C., 594 ). I must, therefore, dismiss the appeal and with costs.


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