Skip to content


Srinivasa Raghava Dikshadar and ors. Vs. Rangasawmi Aiyengar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.1121
AppellantSrinivasa Raghava Dikshadar and ors.
RespondentRangasawmi Aiyengar and ors.
Excerpt:
limitation act (xv of 1877), schedule ii, articles 83, 110, 113 and 116--suit for payment of money on breach of contract--specific performance--limitation. - - it is, however, well settled that suits such as this for failure to pay money according to contract are to be regarded as suits for compensation for breach of contract and not as suits for specific performance (see mitra's 'limitation act' 4th edition, p......the suit with costs on the fact that it is barred by article 113 of the limitation act as a suit for specific performance of a contract. it is no doubt true that article 110 of the limitation act regarding contracts in writing registered does not apply to suits for specific performance of such contracts but only to suits for compensation for the breach of them. it is, however, well settled that suits such as this for failure to pay money according to contract are to be regarded as suits for compensation for breach of contract and not as suits for specific performance (see mitra's 'limitation act' 4th edition, p. 941 and the authorities there cited). the lower courts were, therefore, wrong in applying article 113 of the limitation act to the present case. it is, however, further.....
Judgment:

1. In this case there had been an exchange of lands between the parties and the exchange deed (Ex. A) which is a registered document, contains the following provisions: 'There is no dispute in respect of the said lands. If disputes should so arise, the respective party should be, answerable to the extent of his private property.' The plaintiff was subsequently deprived of some of the lands acquired by the exchange and brings this suit upon the above covenant more than three but less than six years, after the date of deprivation. The lower Courts have dismissed the suit with costs on the fact that it is barred by Article 113 of the Limitation Act as a suit for specific performance of a contract. It is no doubt true that Article 110 of the Limitation Act regarding contracts in writing registered does not apply to suits for specific performance of such contracts but only to suits for compensation for the breach of them. It is, however, well settled that suits such as this for failure to pay money according to contract are to be regarded as suits for compensation for breach of contract and not as suits for specific performance (See Mitra's 'Limitation Act' 4th edition, p. 941 and the authorities there cited). The lower Courts were, therefore, wrong in applying Article 113 of the Limitation Act to the present case. It is, however, further argued that the provisions above cited amount to a covenant for title and that the breach must be considered to have occurred as and from the date of the deed (Ex. A) which in this case was more than six years before the institution of the suit. This is no doubt so in the absence of a special contract (Dart on the Law of Vendors and Purchasers, Vol. II p. 788); but we think that in this case there was a special contract to indemnify the party as and when the deprivation took place. Under Article 116 of the Limitation Act read with Article 83 of the Act, the plaintiff in the present case had six years from the date when he was actually damnified and the suit was within time. The decrees of the lower Courts must be reversed and the suit remanded to the District Munsif for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the event. As regards the third respondent, however, the appeal is not pressed and must be dismissed with costs.


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