Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 29 June, 1960
16. As to the Madras Full Bench case of Muthu Korakki Chetty v. Madar Ammal, ILR 43 Mad 185:(AIR 1920 Mad 1) (FB), it may at once be pointed out that it was directly covered by the Privy Council case of Baijuath Sahai v. Ramgut Singh, 23 Ind App 45 (PC), and, strictly speaking, the point, involved therein, did not require application of any theory of suspension of limitation (vide, in this connection, Chandra, Mani Saha v. Anarjan Bibi and as to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sita Ram v. Municipal Board, Kanpur, , all that need be said here is that it was not a case of extinction or suspension of the cause of action and the question of Suspension of limitation did not strictly, arise in that case and their Lordships' observations at pp. 249-250 of the Report (SCA): (at p. 1041-42 of AIR), were merely approval of the quoted words of Seshagiri Aiyar, J., in the Madras Full Bench case of ILR 43 Mad 185: (AIR 1920 Mad 1), applicable to cases where the starting point of limitation synchronises with the accrual of cause of action on a proper interpretation of column 3 of the relevant Article and were, at the most, an inhibition, forbidding application of equity or equitable consideration to circumvent the statute or against lis express wording, We do not think that the Supreme Court's said observations should be given a greater or wider scope.