Skip to content


Ramakrishna Annavi Vs. Pichandi Chettiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924Mad123; 74Ind.Cas.777
AppellantRamakrishna Annavi
RespondentPichandi Chettiar
Cases Referred and Subraya Kamati v. Pakaya
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), section 20 - payment towards principal and interest--limitation, saving of. - t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the rule is not assailed on the.....phillips, j.1. the evidence of plaintiff's witnesses shows that the payment was made towards principal and interest. if any portion was paid towards interest the ruling in lodd govindass krishnadass v. rukmani bhai 21 ind. cas. 302 : 38 m. 438 : 14 m.l.t. 310 : 1 l.w. 529, is inapplicable and i agree with the decisions reported in mohan shaha v. lakshu karikir 6 ind. cas. 16, and subraya kamati v. pakaya 4 bom. l.r. 231, that the payment of interest saves limitation even though a part of the principal is paid at the same time. the subordinate judge has not, however, decided the question of whether the payment was made on the date alleged in the plaint. the suit is accordingly remanded for disposal in the light of the above remarks. the costs will abide the result.
Judgment:

Phillips, J.

1. The evidence of plaintiff's witnesses shows that the payment was made towards principal and interest. If any portion was paid towards interest the ruling in Lodd Govindass Krishnadass v. Rukmani Bhai 21 Ind. Cas. 302 : 38 M. 438 : 14 M.L.T. 310 : 1 L.W. 529, is inapplicable and I agree with the decisions reported in Mohan Shaha v. Lakshu Karikir 6 Ind. Cas. 16, and Subraya Kamati v. Pakaya 4 Bom. L.R. 231, that the payment of interest saves limitation even though a part of the principal is paid at the same time. The Subordinate Judge has not, however, decided the question of whether the payment was made on the date alleged in the plaint. The suit is accordingly remanded for disposal in the light of the above remarks. The costs will abide the result.


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