Skip to content


Swaminatha Pillai Vs. Mondaiyan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in35Ind.Cas.480
AppellantSwaminatha Pillai
RespondentMondaiyan and anr.
Cases ReferredMylan v. Annavi Madan
Excerpt:
limitation act (tx of 1908), section 20 - interest, payment of, as such--labour in lieu of interest, whether saves limitation. - sadasiva aiyar, j.1. the respondents do not appear. following the principle of the ruling in mylan v. annavi madan 29 m.k 234 i hold that if the plaintiff is able to prove that he received interest through the labour of the defendants till within three years before suit and without a break over three years from 1902 till the date of suit, his claim is not barred by limitation.2. he makes substantially the above allegation in his plaint and his suit ought not to have been dismissed as barred without giving him an opportunity to prove that allegation.3. the district munsif's decree is set aside and he is directed to dispose of the suit according to law. costs will abide the result.
Judgment:

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The respondents do not appear. Following the principle of the ruling in Mylan v. Annavi Madan 29 M.K 234 I hold that if the plaintiff is able to prove that he received interest through the labour of the defendants till within three years before suit and without a break over three years from 1902 till the date of suit, his claim is not barred by limitation.

2. He makes substantially the above allegation in his plaint and his suit ought not to have been dismissed as barred without giving him an opportunity to prove that allegation.

3. The District Munsif's decree is set aside and he is directed to dispose of the suit according to law. Costs will abide the result.


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