Skip to content


Balasundara Pandiam Pillai Vs. Authimulam Chettiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in47Ind.Cas.505
AppellantBalasundara Pandiam Pillai
RespondentAuthimulam Chettiar
Cases ReferredSingarappa v. Talari Sanjivappa
Excerpt:
specific relief act (i of 1877), section 39 - limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 91--cancellation of instrument, suit for--limitation, starting point of. - .....the specific relief act. one of the provisions in this section is that the person suing must have reasonable apprehension that the instrument if left outstanding, may cause him serious injury. under 'article 91 of the limitation act time begins to run when the facts 'entitling' the plaintiff to have toe instrument cancelled or set aside be come known to him. we think that the ward 'entitled' must be interpreted as moaning 'entitled by law,' i.e., under section 39; specific relief act, for we can find no other provision of law which gives a right to bring such a suit to avoid an injury before if is suffered. this is the view taken in singarappa v. talari sanjivappa 15 m.l.j. 228 and according to it the period of limitation in the present case began to run, 'not when the facts which would.....
Judgment:

1. The right to bring a suit to have a document adjudged void and to have it cancelled is governed by Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. One of the provisions in this section is that the person suing must have reasonable apprehension that the instrument if left outstanding, may cause him serious injury. Under 'Article 91 of the Limitation Act time begins to run when the facts 'entitling' the plaintiff to have toe instrument cancelled or set aside be come known to him. We think that the ward 'entitled' must be interpreted as moaning 'entitled by law,' i.e., under Section 39; Specific Relief Act, for we can find no other provision of law which gives a right to bring such a suit to avoid an injury before if is suffered. This is the view taken in Singarappa v. Talari Sanjivappa 15 M.L.J. 228 and according to it the period of limitation in the present case began to run, 'not when the facts which would render the document invalid became known to plaintiff, but when he became aware of facts which aroused a reasonable apprehension that he would suffer serious injury if the document were left outstanding. The plaintiff says he felt this apprehension when the document was registered, and we can see no circumstanoes to justify us in finding that he must have had a reasonable apprehension before that date. If the date of registration is taken as the starting point for limitation the, suit is within time. We accordingly set aside the decree of the lower Court and remand the suit to the District Munsif for disposal on the merits. Costs will abide the result.


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