Skip to content


Syama Charan Borman Vs. Narottam Borman and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in65Ind.Cas.257
AppellantSyama Charan Borman
RespondentNarottam Borman and ors.
Cases Referred and Garindra Mohun Roy Chowdhury v. Bocha Das
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 75 - instalment bond--default in payment of one instalment--limitation. - .....on the point, and the learned vakil has relied mainly on the case of rup narain bhattacharya v. gopi nath mandol 11 c.w.n. 903. that decision purports to be based upon other decisions of this court, which outweigh what appears to have been the opinion of the learned judges who heard that appeal, and the case itself has been referred to in other decisions of this court, and in particular the case of abinash chandra bose v. bama bewa 4 ind. cas. 17 : 13 c.w.n. 1010 and the case of girindra mohun roy chowdhury v. bocha das 1 ind. cas. 49 : 36 c. 394 : 9 c.l.j. 226 : 13 c.w.n. 1004. it is pointed out in the former of the last mentioned cases that the decision in rup narain bhattacharya v. gopi nath mandol 11 c.w.n. 903 was arrived at without reference to many other cases decided by this.....
Judgment:

Pearson, J.

1. In this case the plaintiff sued upon a bond under which the payment was provided for in three instalments, namely, Rs. 31 in 1333, and two other instalments of the same amounts in 1324 and 1325, and it was also provided that in case of default the amount of the instalment in arrears should carry interest at the rate of one anna per rupee per mensem and that the creditor would have further the option of suing for the entire amount of the bond with the stipulated interest on the arrears.

2. The lower Court has dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. It appears that the default was made in the first instalment and in so far as that is concerned, the claim is admittedly barred. The question arises as to the second and third instalments. I have been referred to a number of cases of this nature decided by this Court bearing on the point, and the learned Vakil has relied mainly on the case of Rup Narain Bhattacharya v. Gopi Nath Mandol 11 C.W.N. 903. That decision purports to be based upon other decisions of this Court, which outweigh what appears to have been the opinion of the learned Judges who heard that appeal, and the case itself has been referred to in other decisions of this Court, and in particular the case of Abinash Chandra Bose v. Bama Bewa 4 Ind. Cas. 17 : 13 C.W.N. 1010 and the case of Girindra Mohun Roy Chowdhury v. Bocha Das 1 Ind. Cas. 49 : 36 C. 394 : 9 C.L.J. 226 : 13 C.W.N. 1004. It is pointed out in the former of the last mentioned cases that the decision in Rup Narain Bhattacharya v. Gopi Nath Mandol 11 C.W.N. 903 was arrived at without reference to many other cases decided by this Court leading to the opposite conclusion and that one of the cases relied upon by the learned Judges, namely the case of Chunder Komal Das v. Bisassurree Dassia 13 C.L.R. 243, has been dissented from In that state of affairs I think that in this case I ought to follow the cases mentioned in Abinash Chandra Bose v. Bama Bewa 4 Ind. Cas. 17 : 13 C.W.N. 1010 and Garindra Mohun Roy Chowdhury v. Bocha Das 1 Ind. Cas. 49 : 36 C. 394 : 9 C.L.J. 226 : 13 C.W.N. 1004, and in that view I uphold the decision arrived at by the lower Court and discharge this Rule with costs, the hearing fee being assessed at one gold mohur.


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