Skip to content


Muthukrishna Aiyar and ors. Vs. Pakkiri Voikaran - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in33Ind.Cas.134
AppellantMuthukrishna Aiyar and ors.
RespondentPakkiri Voikaran
Cases Referred and Kariyappa v. Rachapa
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), section 20 - interest, payment of, if includes rendering of service. - .....witnesses, all of whom were examined on plaintiffs' side. these witnesses swear that defendant worked till last year, i.e., till the cultivation season last preceding the suit as urged by plaintiffs' pleader and as mentioned in exhibit i, which is a notice issued to defendant by the plaintiffs. plaintiffs' witnesses nos. 1 and 2 also swear that defendant's father and defendant continued to work together. the father would be regarded as having worked till he died. there is nothing on record to show when the death occurred of kulandan voikarau.6. i find that kulandan voikaran worked as pannial under plaintiffs subsequent to exhibit a till his death, and that this defendant also worked till the cultivation season immediately preceding the suit as asserted in the notice exhibit i.7. this.....
Judgment:

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The District Munsif's statement that there is no stipulation in Exhibit A admitting liability so long as they continue in service' is irrelevant. If he means that even if they continued in service and thus paid interest within three years before suit, it would not save limitation, his view appears to be erroneous Mylan v. Annavi Madan 29 M.P 234 : 16 M.L.J. 99 and Kariyappa v. Rachapa 24 B.P 493 : 2 Bom. L.R. 378.

2. The District Munsif is requested to give a definite finding on the evidence on record as to whether the defendant and Kulandan Voikaran worked under the plaintiffs and during what period or periods they so worked.

3. The finding will be submitted within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the records by the lower Court and one Week will be allowed for filing objections. * In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the District Munsif of Tiruvalur submitted the following

Finding

4. This suit was remitted by the High Court for a finding on the evidence on record on the following issue:

Whether defendant and Kulandan Voikaran worked under the plaintiffs and during what period or periods they so worked.

5. The oral evidence on record consists of three witnesses, all of whom were examined on plaintiffs' side. These witnesses swear that defendant worked till last year, i.e., till the cultivation season last preceding the suit as urged by plaintiffs' Pleader and as mentioned in Exhibit I, which is a notice issued to defendant by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' witnesses Nos. 1 and 2 also swear that defendant's father and defendant continued to work together. The father would be regarded as having worked till he died. There is nothing on record to show when the death occurred of Kulandan Voikarau.

6. I find that Kulandan Voikaran worked as pannial under plaintiffs subsequent to Exhibit A till his death, and that this defendant also worked till the cultivation season immediately preceding the suit as asserted in the notice Exhibit I.

7. This petition coming on for final hearing after the return of the finding of the lower Court upon the issue referred by this Court for trial, the Court delivered the following

Judgment

8. The finding is accepted. The lower Court's decree is set aside and judgment is given for plaintiffs for Rs. 49-15-0 and costs in both Courts against the defendant.


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