Middleton, J
SUTHUKKUMAH – Appellant
Versus
VACCHIRAVAGEE – Respondent
Present: Mr. Justice Middleton.
SUTHUKKUMMAH v. VACHCHIRAVAGEE et al.
C. R., Batticaloa, 5, 904.
Prescription-Death of payee-Non-interruption-Grant of administration-" Bond "-Prescription Ordinance (Ordinance No. 22 of 1871), ss. 6 and 7.
Where prescription has once begun to run against the payee on any instrument, it is not interrupted by the subsequent death of the payee, and the period between the death of the payee and the grant of administration should not be deducted.
Kulendoeveloe v. Kandeperumal 1 distinguished.
Where an instrument was duly stamped as a bond, but was not notarially attested, -
Held, that such instrument was not a "bond" within the meaning of section 6 of Ordinance No. 22 of 1871.
APPEAL by the defendant from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests (G. W. Woodhouse, Esq. ). The facts sufficiently appear in the judgment.
Sansoni (E. H. Prins with him), for the defendants, appellants.
Sampayo, K. C., for the plaintiff, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
August 23, 1909. Middleton J. -
This was an action on a document obligatory marked A and dated July 26, 1901, for Rs. 100, by the endorsee from the deceased
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.