Skip to content


Puraken and ors. Vs. Parvathi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1893)ILR16Mad138
AppellantPuraken and ors.
RespondentParvathi and ors.
Cases ReferredPachamuthu v. Chinnappan I.L.R.
Excerpt:
limitation act - act xv of 1877, schedule ii, articles 91, 120--suit for declaration. - .....and, assuming that plaintiff had a right to sue, they decided that article 120 was the only article which governed the case. following that decision, we hold that plaintiffs' suit was barred and dismiss this second appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. In our judgment the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that Article 120 and not Article 91 applied to the case, and that the suit, which was instituted more than six years after the date of the cause of action, was barred. We cannot concur with appellants' pleader that in the case Pachamuthu v. Chinnappan I.L.R. 10 Mad. 213 the decision as to the only article of the Limitation Act which affected plaintiffs' right was a mere obiter dictum. The question stated by the learned Judges for decision was whether Article 91 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act applied, and, assuming that plaintiff had a right to sue, they decided that Article 120 was the only article which governed the case. Following that decision, we hold that plaintiffs' suit was barred and dismiss this second appeal with costs.


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