Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"So long as the 4th defendant is the person against whom the property or right is claimed, it does not matter whether at the moment of his making the acknowledgment, the claim could have been enforced."

13. The same view was taken by the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Mathai v. Annamma, ILR (1955) Trav-Co 1224. In Pena Parayan Ambalam v. Venkatachalam Chettiar, 1960-1 Mad LJ 34C, Ramaswami, J., gave expression to his inclination to accept the view taken in the above cases but it was not necessary for the learned Judge to decide that question finally for the purpose of disposal of the case before him. More recently Sadasivam, J., gave expression to quite a different view in Mosa Devadasan v. Kalikunji, . The learned Judge appears to have been under a misapprehension that Ramaswami, J., had based his conclusion on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Fakirchand v. Narmada Bai, ILR (1943) Bom 701 : (AIR 1943 Bom 461), a decision which was overruled on appeal in Fakirchand v. Narmadabai, AIR 1948 Bom 125. It will be seen from the judgment of Ramaswami, J., in 1960-1 Mad LJ 346 that the learned Judge was conscious of the fact that the decision of Lokur, J., in ILR (1943) Bom 701 : (AIR 1943 Bom 461) has been set aside on appeal. Although Sadasivam, J., has given no other reason for coming to the conclusion he did, we consider that his view is consistent with the provisions of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act construed in the light of certain well understood principles.