P SREEDEVI Vs. P APPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal is by the plaintiff against the dismissal of her money suit on the ground of limitation.

(2.) Respondent's son married her in 1970. Thirty sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to the appellant was utilised by the respondent for renovating his thatched building. Renovation started in 1974 and completed in March, 1975. Ornaments were sold for that purpose on 23-1-1975. That fact was admitted by the respondent in Ext. A-l will executed by him on 16-6-1977. By that will the building and the land on which it stands was bequeathed to the appellant. The will was subsequently revoked. It was then that the application for permission to sue as an indigent person for the value of ornaments was filed on 19-1-1978. That was dismissed on 19-1-1979. CM. Appeal 299 of 1979 filed against that decision was dismissed on 19-11-1981 granting two months' time to pay court fee on the ground that she suppressed her assets and means. Instead of paying court fee and converting the suit filed alongwith the application into a regular suit, she filed the present suit as a fresh suit on 27-11-1981 on payment of court fee. That is how the plea of limitation happened to be raised.

(3.) 23-1-1975 when the ornaments were sold, 9-1-1978 on which date appellant came to know of the revocation of will and 19-1-1978 when the pauper O.P. was filed are the only dates alleged in the plaint as the dates on which cause of action arose. Among them, 9-l-1978 and 19-1-1978 have nothing to do with the cause of action. They are not relevant at all for considering the question of limitation. No acknowledgment was pleaded in the plaint for saving limitation. If so, limitation could have been computed only from 23-1-1975 on which date the cause of action arose. Ext. Al will has nothing to do with the plaint claim. It was not executed in discharge of the plaint claim which was not admitted or acknowledged therein. Ext. Al could take effect and rights could flow from it only on the death of the testator before which he could cancel the same. The will was not having the effect of extinguishing the appellant's claim or consequently there is no question of the claim reviving when it is cancelled for the purpose of giving a fresh cause of action. If at all anything is involved, it is only a question of morality.