Judgment

AYYANGAR, J.: (For B. P. Sinha C.J.I. and himself)-

We have had the advantage of perusing the judgment of our brother Subba Rao, J. and we agree with him that the appeal should be dismissed.

2. The justification for this separate judgment, however, is because of our inability to agree with him in his construction of the relative scope of the two limbs of S. 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act.

3. The facts of the case have been set out in detail in the judgment of Subba Rao, J. and it is therefore unnecessary to repeat them. There were three principal points that were urged before us on either side which require to be considered and all of them turn on the proper construction of S. 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act which we shall for convenience set out here :

"29. (2) where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that schedule, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law -

(a) the