Skip to content


Venkata Hanumanulu Garu Vs. Lachchamma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1904)14MLJ464
AppellantVenkata Hanumanulu Garu
RespondentLachchamma and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....the hindu law, the reversionary heir entitled thereto on her death. 2. the question is whether the suit is barred by limitation. article 141 of the limitation act is, of course, the article governing the case and under it, if the suit is brought within 12 years from the death of the female, it will be in time--otherwise it will be barred. it, therefore, lay on the plaintiff to show that, on the date of the presentation of the plaint, his claim was not barred, that is to say, he had to show that the death of the female occurred, or must be taken to have occurred, within twelve years prior to the institution of his suit.3. no evidence as to this was called on behalf of the plaintiff. no doubt the present case proceeds on the footing that the female was dead on the date of the suit, as she.....
Judgment:

1. The appellant, on the 20th June 1898, brought this suit for the recovery of lands which had been held by a Hindu female on the ground that he was under the Hindu Law, the reversionary heir entitled thereto on her death.

2. The question is whether the suit is barred by limitation. Article 141 of the Limitation Act is, of course, the article governing the case and under it, if the suit is brought within 12 years from the death of the female, it will be in time--otherwise it will be barred. It, therefore, lay on the plaintiff to show that, on the date of the presentation of the plaint, his claim was not barred, that is to say, he had to show that the death of the female occurred, or must be taken to have occurred, within twelve years prior to the institution of his suit.

3. No evidence as to this was called on behalf of the plaintiff. No doubt the present case proceeds on the footing that the female was dead on the date of the suit, as she had not been heard of for seven years, from her disappearance in 1886 and she was, therefore, presumed to have been dead at the expiry of the seven years. It is settled law that when the question is not merely one of death, but death at a particular time, there is no presumption as to such time; but that the party who has to make out that the death occurred on a specified date, must prove it by evidence. As, in our opinion, it lay on the plaintiff, under Article 141 of the Limitation Act, to prove that the suit was brought within the prescribed period and he has not discharged that onus, the point must be decided against the appellant. On this ground, we confirm the decree of the lower appellate Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.


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