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

1969 Supreme(Mad) 111

S.GANESAN
Nithayya Thevar` – Appellant
Versus
Subramanian Ambalakarar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S. Ganesan, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Court of the District Munsif of Tiruthuraipundi made on 27 th September, 1967 in an unfiled Small Cause Suit, laid on a promissory note bearing the date 27th Adi, Krodhi year (corresponding to the English date nth August, 1964). Applying the provisions of Section 24 of the Limitation Act and accordingly adopting the Gregorian calendar for computing the period of limitation, nth August, 1967 being a working day, the District Munsif rejected the suit filed on 14th August, 1967 as barred by time. 12th and 13th of August, 1967 were admittedly holidays.

2. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it is alleged that the promissory note was executed on 27th Adi, Krodhi year (12th August, 1964) and the learned Counsel relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in Achuthan Nair v. Achuthan Nair AIR1941Mad582 , contends that the question as to the date of the promissory note is one of fact to be decided by the evidence and probabilities according to Section 96 of the Evidence Act, that Section 24 of the Limitation Act creates no presumption as to the date of document but merely provides that the period of limitatio



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