KARANAMURTHI THEVAR Vs. RAMANATHA THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Full Bench has been constituted to consider whether the Court rightly applied Article 62 of the Limitation Act in Mahabala Bhatta v. : (1898)8MLJ139 Subbanna Bhatta v. Kunhanna Bhatta, (1907) 17 M.L.J. 224 :, I.L.R. 30 Mad. 298. R., 8 Rang. 645 and Narayanan v. Rangaswami Chetti, 1915 M.W.N. 215. These cases are in conflict with the decision of a Division Bench of the Court in an unreported case to which reference will be made later and it is said that two decisions of the Privy Council show clearly that they were wrongly decided in this respect.

(2.) WE will first state the facts of the present case as the whole appeal is before us. On the 29th September, 1933, Kandaswami Thevar, father of the plaintiff, conveyed Immovable property to the defendant benami. On the 25th January, 1937, the defendant sold the property to one Arunachalam Pillai for Rs. 750. On the 30th December, 1938, Kandaswami Thevar died. On the 5th October, 1942, the present suit was instituted to recover from the defendant the Rs. 750 which he had received from Arunachalam Pillai. The District Munsiff of Periyakulam in whose Court the suit was instituted, held that the defendant was a benamidar for the plaintiff's father and that the suit was not time -barred as Article 120 of the Limitation Act applied, but he considered that the plaintiff was only entitled to recover Rs. 375 as the other half of Rs. 750 belonged to his mother. The defendant appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul, who agreed with the District Munsiff. The defendant then appealed to this Court on the ground that the suit is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act and therefore was filed out of time.

(3.) IN Subbanna Bhatta v. Kunhanna Bhatta, (1907) 17 M.L.J. 224 :, I.L.R. 30 Mad. 298. , R. 8 Rang. 645 another Division Bench held that the period of limitation for an action by the real owner against a benamidar to recover money received by the latter for the use of the former was that prescribed in Article 62. The Court followed the decision in Mahabala Bhatta v. : (1898)8MLJ139 . The decision in Narayanan v. Rangaswami Cketti, (1915) M.W.N. 215 was to the same effect; buth ere the later case of Subbanna Bhatta v. Kunhanna Bhatta, (1907) 17 M.L.J. 224 :, I.L.R. 30 Mad. 298 was relied on.