Skip to content


Akilandammal Vs. Ratnam Asari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1903)13MLJ145
AppellantAkilandammal
RespondentRatnam Asari
Excerpt:
- .....in this suit more than six years before the suit was brought.2. in is admitted and found by the subordinate judge that this very defendant did interfere with the plaintiff's rights as adopted son in 1889 in regard to-certain property which was the subject matter of original suit no. 7 of 1897. this interference was more than six years before the present suit, and there is nothing in column 3 of article 119 of schedule 2 of the indian limitation act to justify the view of the subordinate judge that the interference which is the starting point for limitation should relate directly to the property sought to be recovered in the suit.3. the present suit is brought to recover certain sums which were recovered, or which ought to have been recovered by the defendant in virtue of a certificate.....
Judgment:

1. The Subordinate Judge held that Article 119 of the Indian Limitation Act does not apply to this case because there was no interference with the plaintiff's right as adopted son in the property claimed in this suit more than six years before the suit was brought.

2. In is admitted and found by the Subordinate Judge that this very defendant did interfere with the plaintiff's rights as adopted son in 1889 in regard to-certain property which was the subject matter of Original Suit No. 7 of 1897. This interference was more than six years before the present suit, and there is nothing in column 3 of Article 119 of schedule 2 of the Indian Limitation Act to justify the view of the Subordinate Judge that the interference which is the starting point for limitation should relate directly to the property sought to be recovered in the suit.

3. The present suit is brought to recover certain sums which were recovered, or which ought to have been recovered by the defendant in virtue of a certificate which she obtained under Act 27 of l860, the grant of which had been ordered before the plaintiff's adoption, and the plaintiff seeks to recover those sums from the defendant solely by virtue of his right as an adopted son. That being so, in accordance with the decision of the majority of the Bench of the court in appeal suit No. 52 of 1900 13 M.L.J. R. 27 , we must hold that Article 119 is applicable and that the suit is barred.

4. We reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.


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