Skip to content


N.P.R.V.A.R. Subramaniam Chettiar and Ors. Vs. A.R.A.R.S. Somasundaram Chettiar Executor of A.P.R. Arunachalam Chettiar's Estate by Mayandi Chettiar, Agent (31.08.1915 - MADHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad697; 30Ind.Cas.777
AppellantN.P.R.V.A.R. Subramaniam Chettiar and Ors.
RespondentA.R.A.R.S. Somasundaram Chettiar Executor of A.P.R. Arunachalam Chettiar's Estate by Mayandi Chettia
Cases ReferredMylan v. Annavi Madan
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), section 20 - transaction adding interest to the principal, if amounts to payment. - .....an issue was framed on the question of limitation, and the parties having gone to trial on the subject, we cannot allow the appellants to raise this plea in the arguments in second appeal, especially when it has not been stated as a ground of second appeal. as regards the arguments (1) that the 5th defendant had no authority to make payments on behalf of defendants nos. 1 to 4 and make them liable by his acts and (2) that interest at nadappu rates should not have been allowed, the subordinate judge has recorded findings in plaintiff's favour on these two points and as those findings are findings of fact and there is some evidence to support them, we cannot interfere. the second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. On the authority of Kriyappa v. Rachapa 2 bom. L.R. 378 Mylan v. Annavi Madan 16 M.L.J. 99 and Original Side Appeal No. 20 of 1905 (unreported), we think that the transaction in this case evidenced by the accounts both of plaintiff and defendants, whereby the interest due up to October 25th was calculated and added to the principal, thus wiping out the debt on account of interest, was a payment which saved limitation under Section 20 of the Limitation Act. An objection has been taken that the defendants were prejudiced by the frame of the plaint, which did not give the defendants notice that the plaintiff intended to rely on this payment to save limitation.

2. An issue was framed on the question of limitation, and the parties having gone to trial on the subject, we cannot allow the appellants to raise this plea in the arguments in second appeal, especially when it has not been stated as a ground of second appeal. As regards the arguments (1) that the 5th defendant had no authority to make payments on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and make them liable by his acts and (2) that interest at Nadappu rates should not have been allowed, the Subordinate Judge has recorded findings in plaintiff's favour on these two points and as those findings are findings of fact and there is some evidence to support them, we cannot interfere. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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