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

1921 Supreme(Mad) 85

J.WALLIS
Vaithinatha Ayyar Dead – Appellant
Versus
Govindaswami Odayar – Respondent


ORDER

John Wallis, C.J.

1. This is an application under Order 22, Rule 9(2) to set aside an abatement. The deceased plaintiff appellant died on 31st July 1920 when the time limited for bringing on his legal representatives was six months under Article 176 of the Limitation Act of 1908. By an amending Act, which was passed early in September 1920 and came into force on the 1st January 1921, the time was reduced to ninety days. It has been contended before us, that, as the death of the plaintiff took place before the amending Act was passed, the petitioner was in time in filing his application on 17th January 1921 within six months of her husbands death. Precisely the same question arose in Aravil Kaliamma v. Sankaran Nambu-dripad (1910) I.L.R. 34 Mad. 292: 20 M.L.T. 347 as regards the reduction by the Limitation Act of 1908 of the period for bringing in legal representative from three years to six months, and it was decided that the application which was made after the coming into force of the Limitation Act of 1908 was governed by it. The question was further considered and the same view was taken with reference to a case under Article 164 in Chidambaram Chettiv. Karuppan Chetti (191




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