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

1944 Supreme(Mad) 86

HAPPELL
S. P. S. Subramaniam Chettiar by authorised agent K. P. Subramania Aiyer – Appellant
Versus
Maruthamuthu by authorised agent Karuppanna Pandithan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Happell, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of O.S. No. 70 of 1940 in the Court of the District Munsif of Namakkal, a suit upon a foreign judgment. The question is whether the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The defendant who was a permanent resident of Kalappanickenpatti village within the jurisdiction of the Court of the District Muilsif of Nemakkal and temporarily residing at Muar in the Federated Malay States had borrowed 1356 dollars from the plaintiff on a promissory note. The plaintiff filed C. S. No. 81 of 1930 in the District Court of Muar and obtained a decree on 21st July 1930. Various payments were made by the defendant towards the discharge of this decree, the last being on 12th June 1938. On 10th January 1940, a sum of 786 dollars 12 cents was found due and on 28th February 1940 the plaintiff filed the present suit to enforce the foreign judgment. Article 117, Limitation Act, provides a period of limitation of six years from the date of the foreign judgment, and, as the foreign judgment was pronounced on 21st July 1930, the suit was on the face of it barred. The plaintiff, however, contended that limitation was saved




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