Skip to content


Tirupatiraju Vs. Rajagopala Kristnama Razu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1898)8MLJ271
AppellantTirupatiraju
RespondentRajagopala Kristnama Razu and ors.
Excerpt:
- 1. we agree with the judge that the article of the limitation act applicable is 61, but we find that under that article the suit is not barred by limitation as the money, in respect of which contribution is sought, was not paid till 31st january, 1894, and this suit was brought on the 5th january 1897.2. we, therefore, reverse the decree appealed against and remand the suit for fresh disposal. costs to abide and follow the result.
Judgment:

1. We agree with the Judge that the Article of the Limitation Act applicable is 61, but we find that under that Article the suit is not barred by limitation as the money, in respect of which contribution is sought, was not paid till 31st January, 1894, and this suit was brought on the 5th January 1897.

2. We, therefore, reverse the decree appealed against and remand the suit for fresh disposal. Costs to abide and follow the result.


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