Skip to content


Periyanna Pillai Vs. Arasu thevan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.568
AppellantPeriyanna Pillai
RespondentArasu thevan
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), section 13 - plaintiff claiming exclusion of time of defendant's absence from, british india--strict proof of absence required. - .....an earlier bond in 1901; and he says he took the bond from the wife in substitution for the husband's bond. the plaintiff alleged that the wife was the agent of the husband and had authority to execute the bond on his behalf. this is found against. the plaintiff now asks for a decree against the 2nd defendant on the ground that the 2nd defendant was liable on the original bond of 1901. the action is not brought on the bond of 1901. if it can be treated as a suit on the bond of 1901, then the question will have to be considered as to limitation in respect of the action upon that bond. prima facie the action will be barred. the plaintiff says that the 2nd defendant was absent out of british india, and he would be entitled to deduction of time. all this would have to be pleaded and.....
Judgment:

1. I see no ground for this revision petition. Upon a bond executed by the wife, the 1st defendant, the plaintiff wants a decree against the husband, the 2nd defendant, because the 2nd defendant had executed an earlier bond in 1901; and he says he took the bond from the wife in substitution for the husband's bond. The plaintiff alleged that the wife was the agent of the husband and had authority to execute the bond on his behalf. This is found against. The plaintiff now asks for a decree against the 2nd defendant on the ground that the 2nd defendant was liable on the original bond of 1901. The action is not brought on the bond of 1901. If it can be treated as a suit on the bond of 1901, then the question will have to be considered as to limitation in respect of the action upon that bond. Prima facie the action will be barred. The plaintiff says that the 2nd defendant was absent out of British India, and he would be entitled to deduction of time. All this would have to be pleaded and the plaintiff would be required strictly to prove the period which he is entitled to deduct under Section 13 of the Limitation Act. I do not think I can allow the plaintiff to change his ground of action against the 2nd defendant in revision. I dismiss the petition with costs.


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