Skip to content


Venkataratnam Naidu and anr. Vs. Ramaraju and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1901)ILR24Mad361
AppellantVenkataratnam Naidu and anr.
RespondentRamaraju and anr.
Cases ReferredMathura Singh v. Bhawany Singh I.L.R.
Excerpt:
limitation act - act xv of 1877, sections 14, 19--deduction of period during which plaintiff had been prosecuting another proceeding--former proceeding dismissed jar misjoinder of causes of action--written statement of defendant treated as an acknowledgment. - .....analogous to that decided in assan v. pathumma i.l.r. 22 mad. 894 following the full bench decision of this court in venkiti nayak v. murugappa chetti i.l.r. 20 mad. 48 see also mathura singh v. bhawany singh i.l.r. 22 all. 248. when such deduction is inside from the period to which the plaintiff was entitled under exhibit f, which is the latest acknowledgment, this suit is in time if the former suit was prosecuted with due diligence. we must ask the subordinate judge to submit a finding on this point....2. [in compliance with the above order, the subordinate judge submitted a finding to the effect that the former suit had been prosecuted with due diligence.]3. the appeal and the memorandum of objections put in by the first respondent coming on for final hearing after the receipt of.....
Judgment:

1. Mr. Ross, the District Judge, held that the suit No. 15 of 1892 on the file of the District Court of Godavari, was not sustainable as causes of action were wrongly joined, and the consequence was the plaintiff had to bring three separate suits in the Munsif's Court. The period during which the original combined suit was pending in the District Court, viz., from the 30th September 1892 to 23rd October 1893, is a period, which the plaintiff is entitled to deduct under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, this case being analogous to that decided in Assan v. Pathumma I.L.R. 22 Mad. 894 following the Full Bench decision of this Court in Venkiti Nayak v. Murugappa Chetti I.L.R. 20 Mad. 48 see also Mathura Singh v. Bhawany Singh I.L.R. 22 All. 248. When such deduction is inside from the period to which the plaintiff was entitled under exhibit F, which is the latest acknowledgment, this suit is in time if the former suit was prosecuted with due diligence. We must ask the Subordinate Judge to submit a finding on this point....

2. [In compliance with the above order, the Subordinate Judge submitted a finding to the effect that the former suit had been prosecuted with due diligence.]

3. The appeal and the memorandum of objections put in by the first respondent coming on for final hearing after the receipt of the above finding, the Court delivered the following.

4. We accept the finding of the lower Appellate Court and therefore hold that the suit was not barred by limitation. The decrees of both the lower Courts are reversed, and the appeal is remanded for disposal upon the merits...


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