Skip to content


Venkatanarasimhulu Vs. Peramma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR18Mad173
AppellantVenkatanarasimhulu
RespondentPeramma
Cases ReferredHanuman Kamat v. Hanuman Mandur I.L.R.
Excerpt:
limitation act - act, xv of 1877, schedule 11, articles 62, 97--suit to recover price paid on a void sale. - - 1. the article applicable is clearly no. 971 of schedule ii, and the cause of action accrued on the date of failure of the consideration, i. but the ground of the present suit is failure of consideration, which must depend upon the result of the suit and not on a particular finding in that suit. the date of the failure.1. the article applicable is clearly no. 971 of schedule ii, and the cause of action accrued on the date of failure of the consideration, i.e., the date of the high court's decree, dated 31st october 1889. this suit brought within three years from that date is in time.2. it has been found in a former suit between the same parties that rs. 737 were paid and that the sale-deed could not be set aside by the respondent by whom it was executed voluntarily.3. in order that the cause of action should run from the date of the sale, it must be found that the sale was void ab initio.4. it is only in such a case that article 622 can apply, cf. hanuman kamat v. hanuman mandur i.l.r. 19 cal. 123 it was found, no doubt, in the former suit that the plaintiff had the means of knowing that defendant's.....
Judgment:

1. The article applicable is clearly No. 971 of Schedule II, and the cause of action accrued on the date of failure of the consideration, i.e., the date of the High Court's decree, dated 31st October 1889. This suit brought within three years from that date is in time.

2. It has been found in a former suit between the same parties that Rs. 737 were paid and that the sale-deed could not be set aside by the respondent by whom it was executed voluntarily.

3. In order that the cause of action should run from the date of the sale, it must be found that the sale was void ab initio.

4. It is only in such a case that Article 622 can apply, cf. Hanuman Kamat v. Hanuman Mandur I.L.R. 19 Cal. 123 It was found, no doubt, in the former suit that the plaintiff had the means of knowing that defendant's husband had been absent for only three or four years. But the ground of the present suit is failure of consideration, which must depend upon the result of the suit and not on a particular finding in that suit.

5. We sot aside the decrees of the lower Courts and remand the suit for replacement on the file and the disposal on merits.

6. The costs hitherto incurred will abide and follow the result.

[1]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 97:

-----------0-------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of suit. Period of limi- Time from which period begins

tation. to run

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For money paid upon an exist- Three years. The date of the failure.]

ing consideration which afterwards

fails.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 62:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For money payable by the Three years. When the money is received.]

defendant to the plaintiff for

money received by the defendant

for the plaintiff's use.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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