Skip to content


Anantarama Madyastha Vs. Mandarthi Shrinivasa Adiga and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.267
AppellantAnantarama Madyastha
RespondentMandarthi Shrinivasa Adiga and anr.
Cases ReferredVigneswara v. Bapayya
Excerpt:
hindu law - joint family--manager--discharge--eldest member--suit by eldest member after he attains majority--limitation. - .....of rs. 300 due on a pro-note taken in the defendant's name. it is admitted that the sum was recovered within three years before suit and so no question of limitation arises with regard to it.3. as regards the movables it is not shown when they were returnable to the plaintiffs. the suit as regards them is not, therefore, shown to be barred. we modify the decree of the lower appellate court by disallowing the sum of rs. 154-8-0 with interest thereon.4. the second appeal is otherwise dismissed.5. the parties will pay and receive proportionate costs.
Judgment:

1. As regards the sum of Rs. 154-8-0 it is found by the District Judge that the amount has not been paid and that the suit is in time as the 2nd plaintiff attained majority within three years before suit. The case of Ahinsa Bibi v. Abdul Kader Saheb 25 M. 26 does not support the judge. That was the case of co-heirs of a deceased Muhammadan when one of them is not entitled to give a discharge on behalf of all. As pointed out in that very case and, as laid down in Vigneswara v. Bapayya 16 M. 436, it is otherwise in the case of a joint Hindu family in which the manager is competent to give a valid discharge on behalf of all. In the present case the 1st plaintiff attained majority in 1901 and was presumably the manager as the senior in age, competent to give a valid discharge. The suit having been brought more than three years after he attained majority it is barred as regards the sum of Rs. 154 and odd.

2. The next item is a sum of Rs. 300 due on a pro-note taken in the defendant's name. It is admitted that the sum was recovered within three years before suit and so no question of limitation arises with regard to it.

3. As regards the movables it is not shown when they were returnable to the plaintiffs. The suit as regards them is not, therefore, shown to be barred. We modify the decree of the lower appellate Court by disallowing the sum of Rs. 154-8-0 with interest thereon.

4. The second appeal is otherwise dismissed.

5. The parties will pay and receive proportionate costs.


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