ARUMUGAM Vs. HERNIETTE SANDJIVY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.1.1987 made in O.S.No.78 of 1983 by the Court of First Additional Subordinate Judge. Pondicherry thereby decreeing the suit for a sum of Rs.28.930.

(2.) ADVERTING to the facts, the respondents herein have filed the suit against the appellant praying to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.28,930 with subsequent interest due on the promissory note and for costs on the ground that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.19.500 from one Louis Francois Victor Sinnas for agricultural expenses and repairing the tractor and for home expenses executing the promissory note for the said amount on 25.7.1972 promising to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a. on demand, that the defendant also paid a sum of Rs.5.500 towards principal on 14.2.1974 and Rs.50 towards interest on 13.1.1977, that no other payment was made by the defendant, that the said Louis Francois Victor Sinnas died on 6.5.1979, that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the said person. That the plaintiffs issued a lawyer's notice of demand to the defendant dated 1.2.1983, but there was no reply from the defendant and hence. the suit for the recovery of the said sum.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant would also cite a judgment of the Division Bench Panaji Bench of the Bombay High Court reported in Ms.Cadar Constructions v. Ms.Tara Tiles Ms.Cadar Constructions v. Ms.Tara Tiles Ms.Cadar Constructions v. Ms.Tara Tiles A.I.R. 1964 Bom. 258 wherein in the context of Portuguese Civil Code pertaining to the limitation point that arose, it is held as follows: ?Provisions in the Portuguese Civil Court or other Codes in force in the Union Territory of Diu, Daman, Goa relating to the periods of limitation are local laws within the meaning of 5.29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. But they are also special laws dealing with the rights and liabilities under the Coded themselves of which they form a part. If any cause of action arises under the Portuguese Law in force in the Union Territory, then the period of limitation for the suit based upon that cause of action will be the period mentioned in the relevant Portuguese Law. If, however, the relevant provision in the Portuguese Law has been repealed, and the cause of action has arisen before the repeal of the law then notwithstanding the repeal, a suit based upon that cause of action can be filed and even in that case the relevant provision relating to the period of limitation will be the provision in the Code itself. If, however, the cause of action has arisen outside the Portuguese Law, then the part of the law dealing with the period of limitation will not apply; on the other hand, a suit filed on the basis of the cause of action arising outside the Portuguesae Law will be governed by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. First Civil Appeal No.85 of 1979, dated 18.8.1983, (Bombay at Panaji-Goa) overruled. First Civil Appeal No.27 of 1975, dated 30.6.1983. (Bombay at Panaji-Goa), Approved.? Citing the above judgment of the Division Bench of Panaji Bench of the Bombay High Court, the learned counsel for the appellant would conclude that the cause for the transaction that has arisen in the case in hand cannot be said to have arisen from out of the French Civil Code, but only under the purview of the common Law and hence the French Civil Code cannot be applied to the case in hand as it has been wrongly held on the part of the lower court and it is only the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 which is applicable, in which event, the limitation prescribed therein being only for three Years for a pronote suit to be filed, the suit pronote has become hopelessly time barred and would pray for allowing the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower court.