Skip to content


Velayutha Nair Vs. Vellachami Nadar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1958)2MLJ590
AppellantVelayutha Nair
RespondentVellachami Nadar
Excerpt:
- .....he passed a decree only for a sum of rs. 79-11-3 being the value of food supplied within one year of the suit. the plaintiff has come forward with this revision against the rejection of the rest of his claim.2. the only question in this revision petition is whether the claim has been barred by limitation. article 8 of the limitation act prescribes a period of one year for recovery of the price of food or drink sold by the keeper of a hotel. but in the present case it cannot be held that the suit was one that is contemplated by article 8 of the limitation act. according to the plaintiff, which case is practically accepted by the defendant, there was an account between the parties and the amount payable was on the basis of these accounts. therefore, the suit would not be governed by.....
Judgment:

Ramachandra Iyer, J.

1. This is a Revision Petition filed at the instance of the plaintiff whose suit, S.C.S. No. 179 of 1956, has been dismissed by the District Munsiff of Srivilliputtur. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 297-9-9 as due on accounts. The plaintiff is the proprietor of a small hotel in Srivilliputtur. His case was that the defendant was taking meals and coffee in his hotel, from the beginning of January, 1954 and that he agreed to pay at the rate of Re. 1 for three meals and used to put the mark ' x ' in the accounts of the plaintiff to indicate the days on which he took meals and enter also the cost of light refreshments served to him in the accounts. The plaintiff also produced his accounts and stated that the sum claimed was due from the defendant. The defendant-admitted the supply of meals and coffee from the plaintiff's hotel, but pleaded payment and also bar of the suit claim by limitation. The learned District Munsiff disbelieved the case of discharge but he held that the suit was governed by Article 8 of the Limitation Act and as the transactions mentioned in the accounts began more than a year before the date of plaint he passed a decree only for a sum of Rs. 79-11-3 being the value of food supplied within one year of the suit. The plaintiff has come forward with this Revision against the rejection of the rest of his claim.

2. The only question in this Revision Petition is whether the claim has been barred by limitation. Article 8 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of one year for recovery of the price of food or drink sold by the keeper of a hotel. But in the present case it cannot be held that the suit was one that is contemplated by Article 8 of the Limitation Act. According to the plaintiff, which case is practically accepted by the defendant, there was an account between the parties and the amount payable was on the basis of these accounts. Therefore, the suit would not be governed by Article 8, but would be governed by the article of the Limitation. Act which prescribes a period of three years in regard to a liability on accounts. I am therefore of opinion that the lower Court was wrong in holding that the suit is barred by limitation. This Civil Revision Petition will therefore have to be aljpwed and is allowed with costs.


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