Skip to content


Mavarakkandy Achuthan Nayar Vs. Thanniyatuthil Achuthan Nayar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad587; (1941)1MLJ502
AppellantMavarakkandy Achuthan Nayar
RespondentThanniyatuthil Achuthan Nayar
Excerpt:
- - clearly there has been a mistake in the document and one of these two dates must be wrong......dates. the first was the malayalam date corresponding to 15th november, 1934. the second was the english date 16th november, 1934. the suit was filed on the last day of limitation reckoned from the latter date and it has been held to be barred. it is contended that section 25 of the limitation act applies and that only the english date can be looked to. as i read section 25 it creates no presumption as to the date of a document but merely provides that periods of limitation shall be worked out according to the gregorian calendar. the question is after all a simple question of fact to be decided by evidence and probabilities according to section 96 of the evidence act. clearly there has been a mistake in the document and one of these two dates must be wrong. the only question is which.....
Judgment:

Wadsworth, J.

1. The suit promissory note bore two dates. The first was the Malayalam date corresponding to 15th November, 1934. The second was the English date 16th November, 1934. The suit was filed on the last day of limitation reckoned from the latter date and it has been held to be barred. It is contended that Section 25 of the Limitation Act applies and that only the English date can be looked to. As I read Section 25 it creates no presumption as to the date of a document but merely provides that periods of limitation shall be worked out according to the Gregorian calendar. The question is after all a simple question of fact to be decided by evidence and probabilities according to Section 96 of the Evidence Act. Clearly there has been a mistake in the document and one of these two dates must be wrong. The only question is which date is wrong and there is no legal presumption in favour of either. The lower Court has come to the conclusion that it is more likely that the Malayalam date was right. That seems to be a reasonable decision and in any case it is one with which I cannot interfere in revision. The petition is therefore dismissed with costs.


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