Skip to content


Koligiri Venkatramarayanier and ors. Vs. Patibanda Basayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1912)23MLJ620
AppellantKoligiri Venkatramarayanier and ors.
RespondentPatibanda Basayya
Cases ReferredYellammal v. Ayyappa Naick
Excerpt:
- .....that case article 36 would be applicable. according to the view that i have taken in yellammal v. ayyappa naick (1912) 23 m.l.j. 519, the plaintiff's cause of action for the value of crops did not arise until his suit establishing his right to the land was decided on 22nd september 1909 and the suit was instituted on 22nd november 1909. i am of opinion for the reasons stated in my judgment in yellammal v. ayyappa naick (1912) 23 m.l.j. 519, that the proper article applicable is 62 or 120. i must hold therefore that the subordinate judge was right in his view that the suit was not barred by limitation. i would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.sadasiva aiyar, j.2. if article 29 or 36 applies the cause of action arose on the 13th december 1906, the date of the attachment of the.....
Judgment:

Sundara Aiyar, J.

1. According to the General clauses Act 1897 which was in force at the time when the land and the crops were attached standing crops would be immoveable property. It is urged for the respondent that this would make Article 21 of the Indian Limitation Act not applicable. Mr. Ram Doss contends that in that case Article 36 would be applicable. According to the view that I have taken in Yellammal v. Ayyappa Naick (1912) 23 M.L.J. 519, the plaintiff's cause of action for the value of crops did not arise until his suit establishing his right to the land was decided on 22nd September 1909 and the suit was instituted on 22nd November 1909. I am of opinion for the reasons stated in my judgment in Yellammal v. Ayyappa Naick (1912) 23 M.L.J. 519, that the proper article applicable is 62 or 120. I must hold therefore that the Subordinate Judge was right in his view that the suit was not barred by limitation. I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

2. If Article 29 or 36 applies the cause of action arose on the 13th December 1906, the date of the attachment of the property. According to the view I have taken in Yellammal v. Ayyappa Naick (1912) 23 M.L.J. 519, I would reverse the judgment of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the Munsif.

Sundara Aiyar, J.

3. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.


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