MARIAMMAL Vs. AUGUSTINE ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the daughter and grand-daughter of one Anthonimuthu Goundan, an Indian Christian, who died in 1885 leaving his daughters, the 1 plaintiff and Souri Ammal, the mother of the 2nd plaintiff and a son, Siluvamuthu Goundan the 1 defendant. The plaintiffs sue for their share of the property of Anthonimuthu Goundan. The Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit but the District Judge on appeal dismissed the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

(2.) The main contention of Mr. Ananthakrisnna Iyer for the appellant is that the District Judge has not addressed himself to the real question in the case and that his finding that the plaintiffs suit is barred by limitation is not a satisfactory finding; in other words, that the learned Judge has misdirected himself as to the real question at issue and that, therefore, his judgment cannot be allowed to stand. In para. 13 of his judgment, he says: I have no hesitation in holding on Issues Nos. 6 and 10 that the plaintiff or the 1st plaintiff and the mother of the 2nd plaintiff never enjoyed Anthonimuthu's property from the time of his death and they allowed the 1 defendant to enjoy their share to the exclusion of their enjoyment and that the suit is, therefore, barred by limitation.

(3.) This judgment, I must say, is not a satisfactory one, nor has the Judge stated the issue which ought to be found in order to dispose of the case. But the question is whether I should interfere in second appeal with the findings of fact by the District Judge. If the judgment does not contain materials, which would justify his conclusion, no doubt the judgment should not be allowed to stand, but on reading the judgment I find that he has adverted to a number of circumstances, from which the Judge, as a judge of fact, is entitled to come to a certain conclusion. I do not think that it would be right in second appeal to upset the finding merely on the ground that there are certain expressions in the judgment which are not satisfactory. If by the use of the expression they allowed 1 defendant to enjoy their share to the exclusion of their enjoyment