Skip to content


Akkineri Seeeramulu and Two ors. Vs. Mullapudi Ramayya and Eight ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR25Mad731
AppellantAkkineri Seeeramulu and Two ors.
RespondentMullapudi Ramayya and Eight ors.
Excerpt:
limitation act - act xv of 1877, schedule ii, article 120--alienation by widow--subsequent suit to set it aside--withdrawal of suit without permission to bring a fresh suit--confirmation of original alienation--fresh cause of action to sons of the daughters. - .....there was no doubt a prayer to this effect in the plaint, but that it had not been granted by the district munsif and that the plaintiffs have not appealed against that decree in so far as it omitted to grant that prayer. as the decree of the district munsif was in favour of the plaintiffs, there was nothing for them to appeal against. the judgment of the district munsif, moreover, shows he did not disallow this prayer. we must hold that the withdrawal of the suit of 1892 on the ground that the alienation was valid without permission to bring a new suit is a confirmation of the alienation of 1874 and gives a fresh cause of action and it follows that the present suit is not barred by limitation. as the district judge has decided the appeal upon a preliminary point which has been set.....
Judgment:

1. The Judge is right in holding that in so far as the alienation of 1874 is concerned, this suit is barred by limitation. There is, however, also a further prayer in the plaint that the alienation made by way of confirmation of the prior alienation, by the (withdrawal) application put in, in 1892 by the third and fourth defendants should be set aside. As to this the Judge holds that there was no doubt a prayer to this effect in the plaint, but that it had not been granted by the District Munsif and that the plaintiffs have not appealed against that decree in so far as it omitted to grant that prayer. As the decree of the District Munsif was in favour of the plaintiffs, there was nothing for them to appeal against. The judgment of the District Munsif, moreover, shows he did not disallow this prayer. We must hold that the withdrawal of the suit of 1892 on the ground that the alienation was valid without permission to bring a new suit is a confirmation of the alienation of 1874 and gives a fresh cause of action and it follows that the present suit is not barred by limitation. As the District Judge has decided the appeal upon a preliminary point which has been set aside on second appeal, we must refer the appeal back to him for disposal on the merits. Costs will follow the result.


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