CHEKUTTY Vs. KUNHAVULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendant raises the question of interpretation of S. 23 of Act XXXI of 1958.

(2.) THE suit out of which the appeal arises is for recovery rs. 402. 81 p. being the arrears of rent due for 1132 and 1133 under a marupat ext. Al dated 13-7-1956 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. THE property belonged to the defendant who assigned the same to the plaintiff under Ext. BI dated 13-7-1956. On the same date the defendant took back the property on lease under Ext. Al. THE suit is for recovery of rent due thereunder.

(3.) THE question is whether such a clause will satisfy the requirement of S. 23 of Act XXXI of 1958. We have no hesitation to hold that it cannot. THE word 'within' is expressive of the intention that there shall be an outer limit. It means 'on or before'. In Black's Law Dictionary (page 1777) the word 'within. is explained thus: ' When used relative to time, has been defined variously as meaning any time before; at or before; at the end of; before the expiration of; not beyond; not exceeding; not later than. THE use of the word 'within' as a limit of time, or degree, or space, embraces the last day, or degree or entire distance, covered by the limit fixed. " An identical question was considered by Velu Pillai J. in kandakka Sooppi v. Joseph 1965 KLT 1236. THE learned judge observed: "in my view, the decision of the case must turn on the meaning of the term 'within any stipulated period' the word 'within, pointing to an cuter limit of a specified period, the fixation of an inner limit, if I may say so, by i self, being insufficient. THE term 'within according to dictionary, means 'not beyond". I look in vain for such a limit in the relevant provision in Ext. B1 quoted above. " With great respect to the learned judge we agree with the above observations.