JAIRAM DASS Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order be read in continuation of my earlier order dt. Feb. 20, 1984, whereby the issue, whether the suit is within limitation, was framed and the case was remanded to the trial Court for report after allowing the parties to produce necessary evidence on the said issue. The report of the trial Court dt. May 21, 1984, was received in this Court. The learned trial Court after discussing the entire evidence has given a firm finding that the date of the birth of the plaintiff was Nov. 30, 1956 and, therefore, the suit filed on Nov. 30, 1977, i.e., within three years after attaining the age of majority, was within time.

(2.) The learned counsel for the defendant - appellant submitted that the said finding of the trial Court was wrong, as according to the learned counsel, the evidence has not been properly appreciated, and inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration. However, I do not find any force in this contention. The entire evidence led by the parties has been discussed in detail and on that basis, a firm finding has been given that the date of birth of the plaintiff was Nov. 30, 1956.

(3.) Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that even then, the suit was barred by time as the last date of limitation for filing the suit was Nov. 29, 1977, whereas it was filed on Nov. 30, 1977. However, no meaningful argument could be raised to support this contention. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent relied upon Jacob v. Rosy, AIR 1976 Mad 399 and Sushila Devi v. Prem Kumar, AIR 1981 AIR 83, to contend that a person born on Dec. 8, 1957, would attain majority at midnight of Dec. 8, 1975, i.e., the first moment of 8th Dec. 1975. Apart from the above, S.4 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, provides,-