MULI Vs. GANPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Muli filed this suit on 31st August 1925, against Ganpat, for the recovery of Rs. 1,800 which consisted mainly of three items, i.e., Rs. 800 paid to defendant on 25th June 1913, Rs. 584 interest, by way of damages from 25th June 1913 to 25th August 1925, and costs incurred in Civil Suit No. 74 of 1915 and Appeal No. 24 of 1918.

(2.) THE respondent Ganpat sold a portion in survey No. 159 and a portion in survey No. 27 to Muli by means of a sale-deed, and received Rs. 800 out of Rs. 1,000 for which amount the sale was effected. Muli could not obtain possession of the fields after the sale as Gopala and Balwanta obstructed her, and she filed a suit in 1915 against Gopala and Balwanta for partition and separate possession of half share in the two fields. The suit was dismissed on 10th October 1917, the first appeal was dismissed or 29th September 1922, and the second appeal on 23rd June 1924. In para. 3 of the plaint it was alleged that the cause of action accrued on 23rd June 1924, the date on which this Court decided the second appeal.

(3.) THOUGH a number of points were mentioned in the memorandum of appeal but the learned pleader for the appellant has-argued only one point about limitation, and has urged that, though Article 97, Lim. Act applies to the present case, the period must be counted from the date of the judgment of the first appellate Court. In support of this proposition he has relied on the case, Sarvothama Rao v. Chinnasami Pillai [1919] 42 Mad. 507, in which it was held that the suit was not harred by limitation under Article 97, Lim. Act, as the consideration, failed only when it was finally determined by the High Court in second appeal.