Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
O Subrahmania Aiyar
Veerabhadra Varaprasada Row
Versus
Vellanki Venkatadri
Decided On : 19 October, 1899
Limitation Act - Hereditary Office of Karnam - The appellant's claim for an annual payment as rusum falls within Article 131 of the Limitation Act. The right, if it ever existed, is held to be barred as it was first refused more than thirty years before the institution of the present suit. The appellant's succession to the office within twelve years before the suit is immaterial due to the identity of interest which exists in the case of successive office holders of the present description.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, holder of the hereditary office of karnam, claimed entitlement to an annual payment as rusum. The lower appellate Court held the right to be barred as it was first refused more than thirty years before the institution of the present suit.
Finding of the Court:
The Court allowed the appeal to the extent of two annas per kunta, which was admitted in the claim, and modified the decree accordingly. The appeal was dismissed as to the remaining two annas, with costs being borne by each party.
Issues: The main issue was the appellant's entitlement to an annual payment as rusum and the application of the Limitation Act to the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The right claimed by the appellant falls within Article 131 of the Limitation Act and was held to be barred as it was first refused more than thirty years before the institution of the present suit. The appellant's succession to the office within twelve years before the suit was deemed immaterial due to the identity of interest which exists in the case of successive office holders of the present description.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed to the extent of two annas per kunta, which was admitted in the claim, and the decree was modified accordingly. The appeal was dismissed as to the remaining two annas, with costs being borne by each party.
Subrahmania Aiyar, O.C.J.
1. The right set up by the appellant--the present holder of the hereditary office of karnam in the village of Pinakadimi--that he is entitled to an annual payment as rusum is of course a periodically recurring right falling within Article 131 of the Limitation Act, and as to the difference between the four annas claimed by the appellant and the two annas admitted by the respondent, the right, if it ever existed, must, as taken by the lower appellate Court be held to be barred, the plffs predecessor in office having, according to that Courts finding, which, as a finding of fact, is finding on us, been first refused the enjoyment of the right more than thirty years before the institution of the present suit It is scarcely necessary to say that the fact that the appellant himself succeeded to the office within twelve years before the suit is immaterial,, since, in consequence of the identity of interest which exists in the case of successive office holders of the present description the office-holders for the time being in the absence of fraud or collusion represents his successor so as to make the appellant ,a person deriving his right to sue from or through his prodecessor in office within the meaning of the interpretation clause relating to plaintiff in Section 3 of the Limitation Act. If authority in support of this view were accessory, reference may be made to Radhabai & Ramachandra Konher v. Anantrav Baghuant Deshpande (1885) I.L.R. 9 B. 198 where a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, after a review of great many authorities, arrived at the conclusion that in cases similar to this a predecessor subject to exception on the ground of fraud, etc., fully represents his successors in the matter of resjudicata and limitation.
2. The appeal must, however, be allowed of the extent of two annas per kunta to which the claim was, as already stated, admitted and the decree modified accordingly. The appeal must be dismissed, as to the remaining two annas, the costs here being borne by each party.
OFarrell, J.
3. I do not dissent.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
