Judgement

Appeal (No. 81 of 1935) from an order of the High Court (August 22, 1934) affirming an order of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore (August 22, 1930), made in proceedings for the execution of a compromise decree (March 20, 1919).

The respondent, the mother of the plaintiff in the suit which was compromised, sought by petition after her sons death while a minor, to be brought on the record as her sons legal representative and to recover the sum which would have been payable to him on his attaining majority by the appellant under the compromise decree. Her petition was filed within three years of the date when her son would have attained majority, and the questions for determination were whether she was entitled to maintain her application, and if so, whether the application was barred by limitation.

The facts and the provisions of the compromise decree appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Subordinate Judge made an order that the period of three years limitation began to run on and from September 30, 1926, when the minor plaintiff would have attained his majority, and not from the date of his death as contended by the appellant.

On appeal, the High Court (Madhavan Nair and Pandrang Row JJ.) held that though in law the right of the plaintiff accrued to the respondent on his death, enforcement of it could not be had till the date on which he would have attained his majority, September 30, 1926, and that the case fell within art. 182,

cl. 7, of Sch. I of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and that inasmuch as the respondents application was filed within three years from that date it was not barred by time.

1936. July 21. Parikh for the appellant. The respondent did not appear.

July 21. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD MAUGHAM. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated August 22, 1934, affirming the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore, dated August 22, 1930. The orders were made in proceedings for the execution of a compromise decree, dated March 20, 1919, on a petition presented by the legal representative of one Muthukumara Pillai, deceased, which was dated November 20, 1928. The respondent does not appear, and Mr. Parikh, for the appellant, has said everything that can properly be said in support of the appeal; but their Lordships are unable to accept the view that the judgments of the Courts in India are incorrect.

The facts are comparatively simple. In or about the year 1912, one Narayana Pillai and his two minor sons, whose first names were Murugesam and Muthukumara, formed a Hindu joint family. On February 26, 1912, the father, Narayana, partitioned the joint family properties amongst the three coparceners—namely, himself and his two infant sons, and he executed a deed of partition which was registered. Shortly afterwards, namely, on March 15, 1912, he made a will disposing of his share of those properties and two days later he died. He left surviving him his two minor sons and two widows. The mother of the younger son, Muthukumara, was named Minakshisundara Ammal, and she is the respondent to the present appeal. On April 27, 1915, the minor and younger son, Muthukumara, by his next friend, his mother, just mentioned, instituted a suit in the Temporary Sub ordinate Judges Court at Cuddalore, which was afterwards transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Cuddalore. There were six defendants to that suit, including the present appellant, the elder of the two sons. In the suit a declaration was sought that the partition deed and the will were invalid and not binding upon the plaintiff. The suit was contested, but was eventually compromised, and the Subordinate Judge in his decree stated that it was in his opinion a fit and proper compromise and was for the benefit of the minor plaintiff. This decree, dated March 20, 1913, is the decree on the true construction of which the present question arises. The material te