Skip to content


Murugesa Mudali and ors. Vs. Ramasami Chettiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1914Mad668(1); (1914)26MLJ23
AppellantMurugesa Mudali and ors.
RespondentRamasami Chettiar
Cases ReferredHira Sing v. Mussammet Amarti I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....section 4 of the limitation act can be invoked in the case of a suit governed by the. limitation period, prescribed by section 31 (prescribed whether as a matter of grace or otherwise) and not merely the periods prescribed in the a schedule.2. it is unnecessary to consider the other two questions raised by the appellant's learned vakil--one of them was whether on general principles of jurisprudence a suit whose limitation period expired on a sunday could be filed oh the next day and whether gelinin v. monggre (1913) 2 k.b. 549 was correctly decided.3. the other question is whether section 10 of the general clauses act applied in favor of the plaintiff, a question answered in the affirmative by chamier j. in hira sing v. mussammet amarti i.l.r. (1912) a. 375.4. in the result, the appeal.....
Judgment:

1. Adopting the reasoning of the Judgments in Hirasing v. Mussammet Amarti I.L.R. (1912) A.375 we hold that the suit was not barred by limitation. We are not prepared to follow the decision in Shevdas Doulatram v. Narayen I.L.R. (1911) B. 268 and we think that the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act can be invoked in the case of a suit governed by the. Limitation period, prescribed by Section 31 (prescribed whether as a matter of grace or otherwise) and not merely the periods prescribed in the A Schedule.

2. It is unnecessary to consider the other two questions raised by the appellant's learned Vakil--one of them was whether on general principles of Jurisprudence a suit whose limitation period expired on a Sunday could be filed oh the next day and whether Gelinin v. Monggre (1913) 2 K.B. 549 was correctly decided.

3. The other question is whether Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applied in favor of the plaintiff, a question answered in the affirmative by Chamier J. in Hira Sing v. Mussammet Amarti I.L.R. (1912) A. 375.

4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.


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