Skip to content


(Delhi) Venkatarama Doss Pantulu Vs. (Delhi) Bheema Rao - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934Mad103
Appellant(Delhi) Venkatarama Doss Pantulu
Respondent(Delhi) Bheema Rao
Cases ReferredMurlidhar v. Shivaram A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- - 1. this appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree in favour of the respondent, an insane person, and his elder brother, who acted as his next friend as well, and the sola question for determination is whether the application is barred by limitation' the prior application by the wife of the insane respondent for removal of the next friend and permission to execute the decree on behalf of her husband cannot be deemed to be an application for execution in accordance with law within the meaning of article 182, lim......of an application for execution of a decree in favour of the respondent, an insane person, and his elder brother, who acted as his next friend as well, and the sola question for determination is whether the application is barred by limitation' the prior application by the wife of the insane respondent for removal of the next friend and permission to execute the decree on behalf of her husband cannot be deemed to be an application for execution in accordance with law within the meaning of article 182, lim. act, nor was it pressed finally. the original next friend continued to represent the respondent and a batta memo filed in such an application can hardly furnish a fresh starting point o limitation. the question thus depends upon whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit o.....
Judgment:

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree in favour of the respondent, an insane person, and his elder brother, who acted as his next friend as well, and the sola Question for determination is whether the application is barred by limitation' The prior application by the wife of the insane respondent for removal of the next friend and permission to execute the decree on behalf of her husband cannot be deemed to be an application for execution in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 182, Lim. Act, nor was it pressed finally. The original next friend continued to represent the respondent and a batta memo filed in such an application can hardly furnish a fresh starting point o limitation. The question thus depends upon whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit o Section 7, Lim. Act, and whether or not by reason of the decree being on a joint promissory note in favour of the brothers, and the next friend being the elder brother, he could give a valid discharge without the concurrence of the respondent; the decree itself empowers the elder brother to recover the entire amount on furnishing security for the half-share of the respondent. He could thus give a valid discharge without the concurrence of the respondent, as held in Murlidhar v. Shivaram A.I.R. 1929 Bom. 382, and the person under disability is not in such cases entitled to the benefit of Section 7, Lim. Act. It follows therefore that the application is barred by limitation and the decision of the lower Courts cannot be upheld. It is therefore set aside and the execution petition will stand dismissed with costs throughout.


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