The cause of action for the entire suit claim arose only on issuing the demand notice under S.32(1) of the Travancore Chitties Act, 1120, and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the instalments which fell due after 4-6-1974, within three years of the date of suit, and not to the instalments prior to 4-6-1974.

1. This revision petition comes up before us on a reference order of Janaki Amma, J.

2. The petitioners are defendants in a Small Cause suit on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottayam. The plaint claim is based on a chitty security bond. The chitty was subscribed by the first defendant. He prized the ticket on the sixth auction held on 10-12-1971. Ext. Al security bond was executed by the first defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 were sureties. The bond stipulates that in case any future instalment is defaulted the plaintiff-foreman gets the right to recover all instalments in a lump sum. The revision petitioners defaulted payment of subscription from the 23rd instalment. 23rd instalment was on 10-5-1973. The foreman issued a registered notice Ext. A6. It is dated 21-6-1974, The foreman demanded the full amount including the future subscriptions. The chitty terminated on 10-10-1974. The suit was filed on 4-6-1977.

3. Several contentions were raised by the defendants. Only one survived for consideration, viz., the contention based on limitation. The trial court found that the suit is not barred by limitation. The contention of the defendants failed. The suit was decreed.

4. The defendants challenged the decree, being a decree in a Small Cause suit by filing this Civil Revision Petition, In this court the main contention raised is that the suit is barred by limitation. According to the petitioners, since under the terms of the bond the plaintiff got the right to recover all the future subscriptions on the date of default, the cause of action for the suit arose on 10-5-1973, the date of first default and the suit should have been brought before 10-5-1976. Further it was strongly urged that since the suit was brought only on 4-6-1977, at any rate, instalments which fell due beyond three years prior to that date got barred and therefore if at all, the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to a decree, it is only for the instalments which fell due within a period of three years prior to the date of suit.

3. The question regarding limitation in similar circumstances was considered in a Division Bench decision, Sukumaran v. Sankaran reported in 1977 KLT. 833 The Division Bench had occasion to decide the question of applicability of Art.37 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to cases arising under the Chitties Act, 1120. In that case the security bond was executed on 7-10-1970. The default was from 10-6-1971. The chitty terminated on 10-5-1973. A notice under S.32(1) of Chitties Act. 1120 was issued on 14-2-1974 and the suit was filed on 8-10-1974. The Division Bench accepted the view expressed in Kunjamma George v. Kesava Pillai (1963 KLT 68). that unless a demand in writing under S.32(1) of the Travancore Chitties Act, 1120 was made by the foreman for consolidated payment of the future instalments, his right under the contract did not become enforceable and limitation could not have run against him regarding all the future instalments. The court held that the suit having been instituted only on 8-10-1974 the instalments which fell due beyond a period of three years prior to that date became barred and the plaintiff is entitled only to a decree for the balance.

4. If we accept the correctness of the decision reported in 1977 KLT. 833 and we have no doubt about it, the plaintiff in this case is entitled only to a decree for the instalments which fell due after 4-6-1974; i.e. within three years of the date of suit and not to the instalments prior to 4-6-1974 and therefore the decree as such granting the full amount claimed is unsustainable in law.

5. The respondent's counsel challenges this view and presents his case in a slightly different manner. According to him, the cause of action for the entire suit claim arose only on issuing the demand notice under S.32(1) of the Travancore Chitties Act, 1120. The section reads thus:

"32(1) A foreman shall not be entitled to claim consolidated payment of all the future subscriptions from a default