SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1941 Supreme(Mad) 96

PANDRANG ROW
N. Kunjithapatham Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Saraswathi Ammal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Pandrang Row, J.

1. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the petition in the Court below was barred by limitation. The article which is admittedly applicable is Article 182 of the Limitation Act. The question is whether the petition was presented within three years after the date of the final order in E. P. No. 139 of 1930. That E. P. was allowed by the District Court on the 3rd August, 1932, and an appeal preferred from it by the respondent Sivagamu Amma is said to have abated on the 23rd June, 1933, because Sivagamu Amma the appellant therein, died on the 23rd March, 1933, and no application to bring her legal representative on record was made within 90 days from that date. An application was made to set aside the abatement (C.M.P. No. 3812 of 1933) and that was dismissed on 17th November, 1933. There was however a formal order made on the 17th September, 1935, by a Bench of this Court to the following effect : "Appellant dead. Appeal abates." If this order of 17th September, 1935, can be said to be the final order in the appeal, it is admitted that there would be no bar of limitation. If, on the other hand, the date from which the three years period of limit


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top