Skip to content


(Thalanki) Nagayya and anr. Vs. Thommandra Yerrikalappa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934Mad691
Appellant(Thalanki) Nagayya and anr.
RespondentThommandra Yerrikalappa
Cases ReferredIn Venkatachalam v. Narayana
Excerpt:
- - the facts are very simple and are clearly stated in the judgment under appeal. 2. this view is clearly wrong. if the agency terminated in 1920 the suit is clearly barred by limitation as it was instituted only on 13th february 1928, that is, more than three years from the date when the agency terminated......of admission. the plea of the bar of limitation is a technical plea. it does not mean that no money is due to the plaintiff. it only means that the claim is barred by limitation and cannot be enforced; that is all. as the suit is barred by limitation, the order of remand is set aside and the decision of the district munsif is restored with costs here and in the court below.
Judgment:

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. This is an appeal by the defendants against an order of remand. The facts are very simple and are clearly stated in the judgment under appeal. The main question in the case is whether the suit is barred by limitation. I agree for the reasons given by the lower Court that the relationship of the plaintiff and defendant is that of principal and agent and that the article of the Limitation Act applicable to the case is Article 89, but applying this article I cannot agree with the lower Court that the suit is not barred by Limitation. The learned Judge says that:

The agency does not terminate merely with the selling of goods. It continues till the accounts are settled and money is remitted.

2. This view is clearly wrong. In Venkatachalam v. Narayana 1916 Mad 281, it is held that:

An agency is determined when the agent ceases to represent the principal though his liability in respect of aots done by him as agent may continue.

3. According to this decision though, account has not been rendered and the liability remains the agency may terminate. It is not very seriously argued that the learned Judge's view contained in the extract quoted is correct. The agency in this case must be considered to have terminated when the goods were sold admittedly in 1920 though the defendants may be under liability to pay some money to the plaintiff. If the agency terminated in 1920 the suit is clearly barred by limitation as it was instituted only on 13th February 1928, that is, more than three years from the date when the agency terminated. Then it is argued that since in his evidence D.W. 1 admitted the liability to pay Rs. 137-9-2 to the plaintiff a decree should be given at least to this extent. No such separation of the claim can be made for the purposes of limitation. If the claim is barred, it is entirely barred and there can be no question of relief being given on the ground of admission. The plea of the bar of limitation is a technical plea. It does not mean that no money is due to the plaintiff. It only means that the claim is barred by limitation and cannot be enforced; that is all. As the suit is barred by limitation, the order of remand is set aside and the decision of the District Munsif is restored with costs here and in the Court below.


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