VELAYUDHAN Vs. APPAVU MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the advocate on record of the petitioner has not appeared, nor has anybody else appeared on his behalf. Being a Civil Revision Petition on a question of law, I do not think it is proper to dismiss the case for default. Moreover, when I look into the judgment, I feel that the judgment is also not correct. Therefore, I propose to dispose of the case on merits.

(2.) Two questions arise for consideration in the case. One is whether the foreman of a chit fund can claim a period of limitation of six years in a suit against a prized subscriber for arrears of defaulted subscriptions, on the ground that the variola of the chit is registered. The next question is whether Art.75 of the Limitation Act applies to the case.

(3.) On the first question Mr. S. A. Nagendran, the learned Advocate of the respondents, has brought to my notice two decisions, one of this Court and the other of the Travancore High Court. The decision of the Travancore High Court laid down in a case, where there was a registered variola, that if the suit itself was based on an unregistered security bond, the six years' rule did not apply. The case is Kesava Pillai Velayudhan Pillai v. Krishna Pillai Velayudhan Pillai (1948 TLR 162). That decision has been followed by my learned brother Vaidialingam J. in Chellamma Jagadamma v. Parameswaran Nair ( 1960 (1) KLR 320 ). In the case before me, though there is a registered variola, the security bonds on which the suit is based were not registered. Therefore, applying the above rulings I hold that the decision of the learned Munsiff on this question is correct.