Skip to content


S.P.Rm.M. Meyappa Chettiar Vs. S.P.Rm.Rm. Ramaswami Chettiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad96; (1940)2MLJ494
AppellantS.P.Rm.M. Meyappa Chettiar
RespondentS.P.Rm.Rm. Ramaswami Chettiar
Cases ReferredSundara Aiyar v. Ananthapadmanabha Aityar
Excerpt:
- - even assuming that article 61 is applicable to certain classes of suits for contribution, i am clearly of opinion that it cannot apply to a suit of this description......61 which presupposes the accruing of a cause of action when the payment is made cannot be applicable, cf. sundara aiyar v. ananthapadmanabha aityar : (1922)43mlj271 . it is not disputed that if article 61 does not apply, the proper article applicable is 120, and the suit was filed in time.2. the civil revision petition succeeds and the petitioner's suit will be decreed with costs here and in the court below.
Judgment:

Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. The only point for determination in this revision petition relates to the applicability of Article 61 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner's claim for contribution in respect of a half share of the amount spent by him for purchase of stamps for a sale certificate issued in respect of properties jointly purchased by the petitioner and the respondent. The stamps were purchased on 13th February, 1933. The sale certificate Ex. A was issued by the Court on 20th February, 1933. The suit was brought on 18th February, 1936. The Court below applied Article 61 of the Limitation Act and reckoning 3 years from 13th February, 1933, when the petitioner actually paid the money for the purchase of the stamps held the suit barred by limitation. I cannot agree with this view. Even assuming that Article 61 is applicable to certain classes of suits for contribution, I am clearly of opinion that it cannot apply to a suit of this description. For it is obvious that the petitioner could not have a cause of action against the defendant as soon as he purchased the stamps though he might have intended such purchase to enure to the benefit of the defendant also by the stamps being utilised for the purpose of engrossing the sale certificate to be issued jointly in the name of both the parties. Until the stamps were actually utilised for the purpose the petitioner could not, as it seems to me, claim to recover any part of the purchase money from the respondent. To a case of this kind Article 61 which presupposes the accruing of a cause of action when the payment is made cannot be applicable, cf. Sundara Aiyar v. Ananthapadmanabha Aityar : (1922)43MLJ271 . It is not disputed that if Article 61 does not apply, the proper article applicable is 120, and the suit was filed in time.

2. The Civil Revision Petition succeeds and the petitioner's suit will be decreed with costs here and in the Court below.


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