Skip to content


Ramasami Vs. Muttusami and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1892)ILR15Mad380
AppellantRamasami
RespondentMuttusami and anr.
Cases ReferredRameshwar Mandal v. Ram Chand Roy I.L.R.
Excerpt:
limitation act - act xv of 1877, section 19, schedule ii, articles 57, 115--date when money becomes due--acknowledment in holograph will unsigned. - central excise act, 1944.[c.a. no. 1/1944]. section 11: [p. santhasivam, a. kulasekaran & s. tamilvanan, jj] possession of property taken by bank under the securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act, 2002 - claim towards tax due priority - held, where the bank took possession of the property under section 13 of the s..r.f.a.e.s.i. act, it would be a secured creditor and would have precedence over crowns debt namely excise department in instant case, in the absence of specific provision of first charge in central excise act as well as customs act. generally, the dues to government i.e.,..........description of suit. | period of | time from which period begins to run. | limitation. | ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ for compensation for the breach | three years ... | when the contract is broken, or of any contract, expess or implied, | | (where there are successive breaches) not in writing regstered and not | | when the breach in repect which herein specially provided for. | | the suit is instituted occurs, or (where | | the breach is continuing) when it | | ceases.] ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.....
Judgment:

1. The District Judge found the plaintiff's case was established the averment in the plaint being that the loan was made on 30th September 1885 and was repayable in one month from that date. The plaint was presented on 24th October 1888. There was also evidence to support the finding of the Judge.

2. Even, therefore, if the admisssion contained in the will does not amount to an acknowledgment, the suit is not barred. We agree with the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rameshwar Mandal v. Ram Chand Roy I.L.R. 10 Cal. 1033, that such a suit will fall under Article 115

[Article 115:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Description of suit. | Period of | Time from which period begins to run.

| limitation. |

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For compensation for the breach | Three years ... | When the contract is broken, or

of any contract, expess or implied, | | (where there are successive breaches)

not in writing regstered and not | | when the breach in repect which

herein specially provided for. | | the suit is instituted occurs, or (where

| | the breach is continuing) when it

| | ceases.]

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Article 57:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For money payable for money | Theree years... | When the loang is made.]

lent. | |

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. The decree of the learned Judge must, therefore, be reversed and that of the District Judge restored, but as this point was not taken before we shall make no order as to costs in this Court. The plaintiff is entitled to other costs.


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