Madras High Court
K.A.M.A.K. Kaliyappa Nadar vs G.N. Grigori Pillai And Ors. on 19 February, 1919
Equivalent citations: 50IND. CAS.916
JUDGMENT Oldfield, J.
1. It is not disputed that a demand must be made by plaintiff, before he can sue. The only question is whether he is entitled to postpone the starting point, from which time runs, indefinitely by postponing his demand. The decisions in Mackenzie v. Tiruvengadathan 9 M. 271 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 585 and Lachakkammal v. Sokayya Naick 48 Ind. Cas. 191 : (1918) M.W.N. 583 conclude the matter. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.
2. I feel no hesitation in agreeing with the conclusion of the Court below. The bond was executed in 1901 and the monthly instalments which would exhaust the loan would have come to an end in 1910. This suit was brought in 1917, within three years of a demand made for payment. The learned Vakil for the petitioner contends that although the whole of the amount had become payable in 1910, it is open to him any time after that date to make a demand and to sue within three years of such a demand. In my opinion the provision for demand was to anticipate the due date and to enable the creditor to call in all the in-stalmentary payments without reference to the dates fixed for their receipt. When the instalments had ceased to run, there can be no question of demand. The language is "on demand without reference to future instalments." That language implies that the instalments are still running. When they had come to an end, there can be no question of exercising a right or option. I respectfully adopt the terse language of Mathusawmi Aiyar and Brandt, JJ., in Mackenzie v. Tiruvengadathan 9 M. 271 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 585, where they say with regard to a document containing a similar stipulation: "In effect it creates a case of election as each instalment becomes overdue and after the last instalment becomes overdue there can be no election, for the obvious reason that there are no two obligations to elect between". A similar view was taken in Lachakkammal v. Sokkayya Naick 48 Ind. Cas. 191 : (1918) M.W.N. 583. I am therefore of opinion that the Court below was right in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation. The petition should be dismissed with costs.