KAMMILI VENKATARATNAM Vs. KAMMILI KRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An important question of law has arisen in this appeal. The decree-holder died on 20-11-1956 leaving behind her son, the sole surviving heir. He was minor at the time of the death of the decree-holder. Within three years after attaining majority, the decree-holder's son filed E.P. 75/72. The judgment-debtor raised objection to the effect that the E.P. is barred by limitation in as much as it was not filed within the period of three years from 1-6-1956 on or before which date the 1st defendant judgement-debtor has to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the deceased - decree - holder as per the terms of the compromise decree in O.S. No. 80/ 51 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam and as the limitation started from 1.6 1956 even when the decree-holder was alive

(2.) The Subordinate Judge accepted the objection in view of the decision in Kasam Umar vs. Gulam (1) (AIR 1956 Saurashtra, 20) and also the commentary on section 6 of the Limitation Act 1963 by Chittaley and Row (4th Edition at page 272 which is to the following effect.

(3.) The Chief Justice of Saurashtra High Court in the above decision also held that limitation having once commenced to run it will not be interrupted by the fact of the plaintiff's majority and the suit having been brought more than three years from that day it is clearly barred by limitation. So holding, the learned Subordinate Judge finally dismissed the E. P. Aggrieved with the said decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, the decree-holder preferred this appeal.