Judgement

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements (Settlement of Singapore), delivered June 26, 1914, reversing the judgment of the judge at the trial.

S. A. Supramanian Chetty, who was a native of and domiciled in British India, died on November 11, 1904, having by his will appointed as his executors S. R. M. Ramasamy Chetty (hereinafter called the executor) and another person who renounced probate at some date prior to August, 1907. For some years before his death the deceased had carried on a business at Singapore in partnership with the respondent. In December, 1904, the will was presented to the Court in British India for registration and probate. The respondent entered a caveat and contested its validity. After being set aside by the District Judge the will was affirmed by the High Court at Madras, probate being eventually granted to the executor in India on March 10, 1912.

Meanwhile, on March 10, 1910, the Supreme Court at Singapore granted to P. L. M. A. V. Meyappa Chetty, as representing the widow of the deceased, letters of administration pendente lite as to the assets within the jurisdiction of that Court. On October 23, 1911, he, as administrator pendente lite, commenced the present suit in the Supreme Court, claiming a declaration that the partnership in Singapore between the deceased and the respondent was dissolved by reason of the death of the deceased, and for the usual accounts and realization.

After the executor had obtained probate in India he appointed the appellant by power of attorney to obtain in the Straits Settlements a grant of letters of administration with the will annexed, and the grant was accordingly made. On April 11, 1913, it was ordered by consent that the name of P. L. M. A. V. Meyappa Chetty should be struck out as plaintiff in the suit and the name of the appellant substituted.

The respondent by his defence pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation, and the question of law so raised was subsequently argued upon an agreed statement of the facts.

The Straits Settlements Limitation Ordinance No. 6 of 1896, by s. 4 and Sched. II., art. 86, provides that the period of limitation in the case of a suit for an account and a share of the profits of a dissolved partnership shall be three years from the date of the dissolution. Sect. 17, sub-s. 1, and s. 22, which were also material, are set out in the head-note.

Sproule J. held that the suit was not barred. Upon appeal this decision was reversed by Bucknill, acting C.J., and Sercombe Smith J., Ebden J. dissenting.

1916. Jan. 20, 21, 23. Holman Gregory, K.C., and Jowitt, for the appellant. Sect. 17, sub-s. 1, of the Limitation Ordinance applies to the present suit; it applies to all suits in which the right of action has not accrued to the deceased before his death. There was no personal representative capable of instituting the suit until March 10, 1910, when the original plaintiff was granted letters of administration pendente lite. The suit was commenced on October 23, 1911, and was therefore in time within Sched. II., art. 86. The title of an administrator and his right to sue date from the grant and not from the death of the deceased Tristram and Coote, Probate Practice, 14th ed., p. 58. The testator being domiciled outside the Straits Settlements could not institute a suit there until he had obtained administration or probate within that jurisdiction Vanquelin v. Bouard (( 1863) 15 C. B. (N.S.) 341.) ; Williams on Executors, 10th ed., p. 271. Under the Straits Settlements Civil Procedure Ordinance No. 31 of 1907,

s. 840, the executor could have obtained administration but not probate in the Straits Settlements. It is true that under Ordinance No. 12 of 1909, s. 44, probate in the Straits Settlements could be [@ page

Law. Rep. 43 Ind. App. 113 ( 1915- 1916)

S. M. K. R. Meyappa C hetty V. S. N. Supramanian C hetty

29

LRIA 116] obtained upon an authenticated copy of the will, but under that section probate could