KARANAM VENKIAH Vs. VENKATESU REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first question that has been argued by Mr. Subrahmanyam for the appellant is one of limitation. The appellant instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises, for recovery from the defendants of a ? ..?th share of the amount he had paid in satisfaction of a decree obtained jointly against him and and the defendants in O.S. No. 114 of 1946 on the file of the Chittoor District Munsif's Court. That suit was decreed on 12th January, 1950, and in execution of that decree the properties of the present plaintiff were attached, brought to sale and were actually sold on 6th February, 1950. Thereupon, within 30 days of the sale the plaintiff filed an application on 6th February, Order 21, rule 89, Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside the sale and deposited the requisite amount. The sale was actually set aside on 8th March, 1950. We do not know when the decree-holder therein drew out the amount due to him out of the sum so deposited.

(2.) The present suit was filed on 9th March, 1953, the previous day being a Sunday. The point for determination is whether it is barred by Article 99 of the Indian Limitation Act.

(3.) Under Article 99 a suit for contribution by a party who has paid the whole or more than his share of the amount due under a joint decree may be filled Within 3 years from the date of the payment in excess of the plaintiff's own share. The question, therefore, is what is the date of payment in the present case? Is the payment to be held to have been made on 21st February, 1950, when the deposit was actually made by the present plaintiff (as the respondent contends), or on 8th March, 1950, when the sale was set aside or on any other date subsequent to 8th March, 1950, when the money might have been actually received from the Court by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 115 of 1945 (sic) (as the appellant contends)?