CHENNAMANGALAM VALA SAMAJAM Vs. BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs suit to enforce payment of the amounts due to him as purchaser of the rights of a non prized subscriber in a kuri conducted by Valiakulangara Bhagavathy Devaswom, represented by defendants 1 to 5 by enforcement of the security bond executed by the Devaswom, in favour of the entire body of the subscribers to the kuri has been dismissed by the learned Temporary Additional District Judge of Anjikaimal on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The question of limitation was dealt with as a preliminary point and the finding on that issue being adverse to the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The suit was originally filed before the Crangannur District Munsiffs Court on 20th Dhanu 1124. In conformity with a line of decisions of the Cochin High Court other non prized subscribers were also made parties to the suit giving them the freedom, if so advised, to put forward their claims, if any, against the joint security and the starters. Some of the non prized subscribers entered appearance, filed written statements and paid court fee on the respective amounts of their claim. It was then found that the total value of the claims to be adjudicated upon exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiffs Court. The plaint was accordingly returned for presentation to the proper court by an order, dated 25th February, 1950 and on the very same date it was represented before the Anjikaimal District Court. It would appear that there was a former suit to enforce the same security bond and a decree was passed in that suit in favour of several subscribers. The plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest was not a party to that suit. Some of the subscribers who were parties to the former suit and had obtained decrees in their favour contended inter alia that the suit was barred by limitation. As stated earlier the learned Judge dealt with the question preliminary and upheld the contention.

(3.) In the plaint it was stated that the period of limitation for the action expired on 13th Dhanu 1124, but that the plaint was being filed on 20th Dhanu 1124 as the court remained closed for Christmas holidays till 20th Dhanu 1124. The holidays had commenced before 13th Dhanu 1124. In computing the period of limitation the lower court excluded the period of the pendency of the suit before the Crangannur Munsiffs Court. This was done under S.14 of the Limitation Act and contesting respondent before us did not dispute the correctness of the said view.