Skip to content


Sriman Madabhusi Achamma and ors. Vs. Gopisetti Narayanasawamy Naidu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in3Ind.Cas.747
AppellantSriman Madabhusi Achamma and ors.
RespondentGopisetti Narayanasawamy Naidu and ors.
Cases ReferredGopiladas Garu v. Perraju
Excerpt:
limitation act (xv of 1877), schedule ii, articles 120, 131 - landlord and tenant--levy of enhanced assessment by landlord--suit by tenant for declaration that the levy wad illegal--limitation. - - we are clearly of opinion that article 131 of the schedule ii to the indian limitation act does not apply to a suit like the present......1901, for a declaration that the zamindar of nivadavolu had no right to levy from them any sum in excess of the sum of rs. 549 per annum by way of quit rent. we are clearly of opinion that article 131 of the schedule ii to the indian limitation act does not apply to a suit like the present. the suit cannot be said to be a suit to establish a periodically recurring right. the article applicable is article 120. under that article limitation runs from the time when the right to sue accrues. as was held in gopiladas garu v. perraju 12 m.l.j. 126 the plaintiff's right to sue for a declaration arises on each occasion when the zamindar collects or demands the enhanced rent. each exaction is, if illegal, a separate injury and gives rise to a new cause of action. this suit was brought within.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiffs stated in their plaint that their cause of action arose on the 3rd October, 1898, when the 1st defendant illegally levied Rs. 165-14-0 and they brought their suit in December, 1901, for a declaration that the zamindar of Nivadavolu had no right to levy from them any sum in excess of the sum of Rs. 549 per annum by way of quit rent. We are clearly of opinion that article 131 of the Schedule II to the Indian Limitation Act does not apply to a suit like the present. The suit cannot be said to be a suit to establish a periodically recurring right. The article applicable is article 120. Under that article limitation runs from the time when the right to sue accrues. As was held in Gopiladas Garu v. Perraju 12 M.L.J. 126 the plaintiff's right to sue for a declaration arises on each occasion when the zamindar collects or demands the enhanced rent. Each exaction is, if illegal, a separate injury and gives rise to a new cause of action. This suit was brought within 6 years of the 3rd October, 1898, and is not barred. We, therefore, reverse the decree of the District Judge and remand the appeal for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the result.


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