CORPORATION OF MADRAS Vs. VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the Corporation of Madras arises out of a suit which is instituted for recovery of a sum of Rs. 702-11-9 together with interest. The claim relates to the proportionate amount payable by the defendant to the Corporation in respect of a certain work done by the latter in metalling and lighting a private street in S. No. 94/2 in Mambalam, Madras. There is 1:0 dispute that the liability of the defendant arose under Section 218(1) (sic) of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1919. One of the defences was that the suit was barred by limitation, in view of Section 390-A of that Act.

(2.) The trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation in so far as it related to the recovery of charges for improvements under Ex. A. 11 but that the claim in respect of expenses incurved for lighting except items 7 and 8 was in time. The trial Court decreed the suit on that basis. On appeals preferred by both the corporation as well as the defendant, in so tar as the decree of the trial court was against the one Or the other, the learned Additional Judge of the City Civil Court agreed with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed both the appeals. The aggrieved Corporation has come up to this court in second appeal.

(3.) The main question that was argued in second appeal was the question of limitation. There is no dispute that Section 390-A will govern the suit. That section provides that no suit shall be instituted, in respect of any sum due to the Corporation under the Act, after the expiration of a period of three years from the date on which a suit might first have been instituted. A suit might first have been instituted when the Corporation incurred the relative expenses. That would be the point at which limitation would commence. It was so decided by a Division Bench of this court in In re Corporation of Madras, The expenses were incurred by the Corporation on October 19, 1948. The suit out of which the second appeal arises was instituted on June 26, 1953. The suit for recovery of the amount covered by Ex. A. 11, and items 7 and 8 under Ex, A. 14 would therefore, be barred by limitation,