C.V. VENKATARAMANA IYENGAR DHARMASTHAPANAM BY MANAGING TRUSTEE, DR. C.A. VIJAYARAGHAVAN Vs. P.N. RANGASWAMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S. No. 57 of 1959 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,893 -75, made up of Rs. 6,750 being arrears of rent for three years from 15th April, 1953 to 15th April, 1956 and Rs. 143 -75 being the damages for use and occupation from 15th April, 1956 to 8th August, 1956.

(2.) THE facts necessary for decision in this case are the following. The defendant took on lease the lands belonging to the plaintiff on 15th April, 1958, on a rent of Rs. 2,250 per annum. The plaintiff filed a suit O.S. No. 48 of 1954, on 26th November, 1953, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Coimbatore alleging that the defendant has failed to pay on nth October, 1953, the half -yearly rental of Rs. 1,125 and thereby forfeited the lease and claiming possession and mesne profits upto the date of possession. The suit was transferred to the Court of the District Munsif, Coimbatore and renumbered as O.S. No. 714 of 1956. The suit was decreed on 31st August, 1956. The defendant took the matter on appeal to the District Judge, Coimbatore, who held that the suit Was premature and dismissed it. It must be mentioned that by the time the suit Was decreed, the plaintiff had taken possession of the properties on 8th May, 1956. In the result, the plaintiff got a decree in the trial Court for the sum which is claimed in the present suit. But, as mentioned earlier, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed on 18th March, 1958. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises. The defendant raised many contentions, all of which are not necessary for the purposes of this appeal to be referred to. The main contention of the defendant was that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal the learned District Judge of Coimbatore, held that the claim for arrears for the period 1952 -54 and 1954 -55 was barred by limitation. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) THE only question that arises for decision in this case, is, therefore, the question of limitation. Before the Courts below the plaintiff seems to have relied upon Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of saving limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act would not apply to the facts of the case but, relying on the decisions in Mst. Raneesorna Moyee v. Shooshee Mokhee Burmonia (1867) 12 M.I.A. 244, and Muthuveerappa Chetti v. Adaikappa Chetti : (1920) 39 MLJ 312 , he held that the suit was in time. In this Court, the appellant does not rely upon Section 14 of the Limitation Act, but relies upon the two decisions mentioned above as well as the decisions in Lakhan Chunder Sen v. Madhusudhan Chandra Sen I.L.R. (1908) Cal. 209, and Nrityomani Dassi v. Lakhan Chunder Sen I.L.R. 43 Cal. 660 : (1916) 30 M.L.J. 529. I do not think that the appellant can be prevented from trying to support his plea that the suit is not barred by limitation on a new ground because it is well -established that as long as all the facts necessary for a decision of the question are before the Court, it is open to the Court to consider the question that arises on those facts.