STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. M EKAMBARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above two appeals may be dealt with together since they arose out of a common judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dt. 29.11.1995 in A.S. Nos. 201 & 202/84 and the counsel appearing also have made submissions in common.

(2.) HAVING regard to the limited controversy before us and the consequences to follow our decision in these appeals, we consider it inappropriate to delve a length with the details of facts on merits. Suffice it to notice that the appellant-State represented by the Collector of Dharmapuri District filed O.S. No. 88 of 1980 on the file of the Sub-Court, Krishnagiri, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,756.31 with subsequent interest and costs, representing the amount said to be due from the defendant by name Ekambaram towards arrears of kist in relation to a toddy shop. The appeal before us in LPA. 6 of 1997 pertains to that suit. Likewise, the State represented by the District Collector has also filed O.S. 89/90 against the defendant M. Chockalingam, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 46,408-75, which also relates to a similar claim as in the other suit, with reference to a different toddy shop. The learned trial Judge dismissed both the suits on the view that they were barred by limitation, the suits having not been filed within three years from the date on which the contract was broken as envisaged in Article 55 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. Aggrieved, the State pursued the matter on appeal in A.S. Nos. 201 and 202/84. The learned single Judge also chose to repel the claim of the State that it was Article 112 that really applied and not Article 55 and consequently, the appeals were dismissed confirming the judgment and decrees of the learned trial Judge. Hence, the above appeals.