Skip to content


Ambalavana Pandaram Vs. Vaguran and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Tenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR19Mad52
AppellantAmbalavana Pandaram
RespondentVaguran and ors.
Cases ReferredRamasami Chetti v. Sokkanada Chetti
Excerpt:
limitation act - act xv of 1877, schedule ii, article 116--suit for rent--registered contract signed by lessee only. - - see act xviii of 1875, section 3. were it otherwise, we should have felt it our duty to have referred the question for decision by the full bench, as we are very clearly of opinion that the decision referred to is erroneous......that of the district munsif.4. appellant will have his costs in this court and in the lower appellate court.1. __________________________________________________________________________________________ article 116: __________________________________________________________________________________________ description of suit. period of time from which period begins limitation. to run. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ for compensation for the breach six years when the period of limitation of a contract in writing registered. would begin to run against a suit brought on a similar contract not registered.
Judgment:

1. The only question is whether the claim for rent more than three years prior to suit is time-barred. Plaintiff's contention is that it is not, as the document is registered and therefore Article 116 is applicable, the rent being for a period within six years prior to the suit. The Subordinate Judge has held Article 1161 to be inapplicable on the authority of the decision of Kernan and Brandt, JJ. in Ramasami Chetti v. Sokkanada Chetti 1 Mad. L.J. 737. This decision is, however, not reported in the authorized Law Reports, and is consequently not a binding authority. See Act XVIII of 1875, Section 3. Were it otherwise, we should have felt it our duty to have referred the question for decision by the Full Bench, as we are very clearly of opinion that the decision referred to is erroneous. In our opinion a contract which has, in fact, been registered is no less a 'contract in writing registered' within the meaning of Article 116, because it bears the signature of only one of the parties in the absence of any statutory provision requiring the signatures of both parties.

2. We are of opinion that the registration in the present case is sufficient to bring the present suit within the provisions of Article 116, and consequently the claim for rent for faslis 1295 and 1296 is not barred.

3. We must set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge, and restore that of the District Munsif.

4. Appellant will have his costs in this Court and in the Lower Appellate Court.

1.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Article 116:

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Description of suit. Period of Time from which period begins

limitation. to run.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

For compensation for the breach Six years When the period of limitation

of a contract in writing registered. would begin to run against a suit

brought on a similar contract not

registered.


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