NAGUMILLI NARAYANAMURTY Vs. GUDIMETLA GANGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment our learned brother Justice Jaganmohan Redey and involves the interpretation of S. 10 and Art. 120 of the Limitation Act. The question we are called upon to decide arises in following way.

(2.) ONE Gangadharam who died in year 1923 deposited with his eldest son 1st defendant Rs. 9900/ - before his death purposes of investment. In regard to this fund he executed a will by and under which 1st defendant was directed to pay interest accruing thereon on this amount to his Mahalakshmi and after her the money was be taken in four equal shares by his four including the eldest son, the 1st defendant Mahalakshmi died on 17 -5 -1937. By the time of her death, a portion of interest was undisbursed. It is to this amount that the plaintiff as a stridhana heir of Mahalakshmi has laid claim which has given to this appeal. We are not concerned the other disputes between the parties therefore we need not refer to them. If appears that there was a prior litigation between the 1st defendant and his brothers in regard to this outstanding interest in which the defendant set up a right of his two sister including the plaintiff to this amount.

(3.) IN this appeal, the conclusion of our learned brother that the terminus a quo is not the death of the mother but the denial the right of the plaintiff to the amount is canvassed. The period of limitation under that article is six years from the time the right to sue accrues. The question for consideration a is as to when the right to sue can be said to have accrued within the meaning of this article.