( 1 ) THE Court delivered the following: by my judgment dt. 25-10-1971, the second appeal was dismissed. The appellant fied a review petition which was admitted on 10-3-1972 and the matter is set down for hearing today after notice to Counsel for the respondents.

( 2 ) HEARD Counsel for both the parties, I recall my judgment dt. 25-10-71 and now proceed to dispose of the second appeal by the following judgment. The plaintiff is the appellant. He has lost in both the Courts below. His suit was for possession of certain lands and also for partition and possession of two thirds share in a house and site. In 1951, the plaintiff was a minor. He was represented by his mother in a compromise entered into with defendant-1 in respect of the suit properties amongst others. After attaining majority the plaintiff has challenged the compromise on the ground that it was not beneficial or binding on him. He instituted CS. No. 15 of 1959 out of which this second appeal arises.

( 3 ) THE suit was dismissed on the ground, among others, that it was barred by time, as it was not brought within three years after the plaintiff attained majority. The Courts below have stated that the plaintiff completed his eighteen years of age on the midnight of 5-12-1955 and he was a major on 6-12-1955. The end of three years from the date of attaining majority would be 5-12-1958 and the suit ought to have been filed on 6-12-1958 at the latest and the one filed on 8-12-1958 was therefore beyond the period.

( 4 ) MR. Mandappa for the appellant urged that it is not the correct way of computing a person's age. He said that the three year period must be counted not from the date of attaining majority but from the date of the cessation of minority. He placed reliance on the decision of the Patna high Court in Batuk Prasad Bhagat v. Rudra Das Chakravarthy, AIR. 1950 Pat. 206. According to him, the plaintiff who was born on 6-12-1937 would cease to become a minor on 6-12-1955 and he would be completing three years therefrom on 6-12-1958. Ho added that the last date for filing the suit was 7-12-1958 which was Sunday as per the calendar of the year 1958 and the suit filed on the next day, that is, on 8-12-1958 was therefore in time. On these among other grounds, he urged for the reversal of the decree under appeal.

( 5 ) MR. Krishnamurthy, Counsel for the respondent submitted that the cessation of minority of the appellant was on 5-12-1955 and not on 6-12-1955. The suit according to him ought to have been filed on 6-12-1958 and not on any day thereafter.

( 6 ) THE controversy in the appeal appears to be simple provided one knows the general rule in computing a period of time or the principle in calculating a person's age. Often, the parties commit mistakes in giving their age either out of ignorance or with a deliberate design to gain time. Chandrashekhar, J. , in G. Vatsala Rani v. Selection Committee, (1966) 2mys. L. J. 606. said thus:" But in the absence of any express provision, we think, it is well settled that any specified age in law has to be computed as having been attained or completed on the preceding the anniversary of the birthday, that is, the day preceding the day of the calendar corresponding to the day of birth of the person. "

( 7 ) THIS principle finds support from the passage in Halsbury's Laws of england, Second Edition, Volume 37, para 178, page 100. The said paragraph reads thus:"178. The general rule. In computing a period of time, at any rate when counted in years or months no regard is, as a general rule, paid to fractions of a day, in the sense that the period is regarded as complete although it is short to the extent of a fraction of a day. Similarly, in calculating a person's age, the day of his birth counts as a whole day; and he attains a specified age on the day next before the anniversary of his birthday. "

( 8 ) LET me now apply the principles to the case on hand. The plaintiff was born on 6-12-1937. He had attained his eighteenth year on t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document