Skip to content


Gnanasammanda Pandaram Vs. Palaniyandi Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1894)ILR17Mad61
AppellantGnanasammanda Pandaram
RespondentPalaniyandi Pillai
Cases ReferredMigotti v. Colvill L.R.
Excerpt:
limitation act - act xv of 1877, section 25--date from which time runs. - 1. the question is whether the claim is barred by limitation. if there had been thirty days in masi of the year tharana, the suit would not be barred; but in the year tharana there happened to have been only twenty-nine days in masi. following the decision in almas banee v. mahomed ruja i.l.r. 6 cal. 239 we hold that the suit brought on the 12th march 1891 is not barred. the decision in migotti v. colvill l.r. 4 c.p.d. 233 referred to by the district munsif, relates to computation of a sentence on a prisoner and is not in point.2. we sot aside the decree of the district munsif and remand the suit for disposal on merits.the costs hitherto will abide and follow the result.
Judgment:

1. The question is whether the claim is barred by limitation. If there had been thirty days in Masi of the year Tharana, the suit would not be barred; but in the year Tharana there happened to have been only twenty-nine days in Masi. Following the decision in Almas Banee v. Mahomed Ruja I.L.R. 6 Cal. 239 we hold that the suit brought on the 12th March 1891 is not barred. The decision in Migotti v. Colvill L.R. 4 C.P.D. 233 referred to by the District Munsif, relates to computation of a sentence on a prisoner and is not in point.

2. We sot aside the decree of the District Munsif and remand the suit for disposal on merits.

The costs hitherto will abide and follow the result.


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