Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Arunachellam Chetty vs Sabapathy Chetty on 28 March, 1917
a and there is direct authority in Arunachalam Chetty v. Raman Chetty (1914) 16 M.L.T. 614. Mr. Chenchiah tried to distinguish this case on the ground that there the suit was barred when instituted, feeing more than three years after the death of the agent and therefore could not apply to the principle for which he was contending. But the judgments clearly show that the agent-died in April, 1919, and the suit was brought in December of the same year. The learned Judge held that there was no separate cause of action as against the sons, that is to say, the action against the sons is not different from that against the father and as it was barred against the father, after his life it was also barred against the sons.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 78 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hanumantu Mallesam Naidu And Ors. vs Jugala Panda And Ors. on 17 October, 1899
It seems to me that in this case we ought to follow the decisions in Arunachalam Chetty v. Raman Chetty (1914) 16 M.L.T. 614, Mallesam Naidu v. Jugala Panda (1899) I.L.R. 23 M. 292 (F.B.)
Periasami Mudaliar And Anr. vs T. Seetharama Chettiar And Ors. on 7 December, 1903
and Periaswami Mudaliar v. Seetharama Chettiar (1903) I.L.R. 27 M. 243 : 14 M.L.J. 84 (F B) and no reason has been shown why any of these decisions should be held to be inapplicable to the present case. It seems to me therefore that the appeal fails on all the points put forward and must be dismissed with costs.
Srimat Tirumala Peddinti Sampat, ... vs Mohana Panda And Ors. on 22 July, 1920
8. It may be, as was admitted in Venkatacharyulu v. Mohana Panda (1920) I.L.R. 44 M. 214 : 39 M.L.J. 586, that the onus and methods of proof may differ when the suit is against a legal representative, and it may even be that the remedy would be different in kind; but those are no reasons for holding that a fresh cause of action arose when the assets liable for the claim came into the defendant's hands upon their father's death.
Arunachalam Chetty vs Sabapathy Chetty on 28 March, 1917
Against the doctrine that receipt of the money by the son creates a fresh cause of action, the Madras case relied upon by the learned Judge, Arunachalam Chetty v. Raman Chetty (1914) 16 M.L.T. 614, appears to me to be clear authority from which I can see no reason to differ,.
Kumeda Charan Bala And Anr. vs Asuthosh Chattopadhya on 1 August, 1912
3. Now, then with regard to limitation, Mr. Chenchiah strongly contended before us that there was a liability to account outstanding at the death of the pleader when the agency terminated and that therefore every item of account within three years from the date of the death of the pleader must be taken into account in this suit. He argued that a new cause of action arises as against the legal representatives and that therefore he is entitled to reckon three years, not from the date of the suit but from the date of the termination of the agency. Now in support of this proposition we have been referred to Kumeda Charan Bala v. Asutosh Chattopadhya-ya (1912) 17 C.W.N. 5, Kali Krishna Pal v. Srimati Jagattara (1868) 2 Beng. L.R. 139 (F.B.)