MOHD. AHMED ANSARI, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant is the plaintiff and has filed a suit against four persons to recover Rs. 1,619-1-0. The first defendant is the father and the others are his sons. The amount sued for is the total of three claims, the first being the money value of 54 bags of paddy on account of an oral lease. The next is the principal and interest of a promissory note for Rs. 476 by the father which was executed on 19-4-1949. The last item is the debt of Rs. 54/- on account of Katha dealings. The plaint is dated 24-4-1953, and the defenses raised are that no relation of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, the debt on the promissory note had been discharged and the Katha debt remitted. The trial court found all the aforesaid pleas to be incorrect; but it had dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. In appeal the Subordinate Judge has sustained the defence of the suit not beings within limitation. In second appeal the argument urged before the learned Judge who originally heard the appeal was that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 78 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and the learned Judge having regard to the importance of the ques

Click Here to Read the rest of this document