MUTHIA CHETTIAR Vs. KARUTHAMADA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case or Lingayya V/s. Chinna Narayana (1917) I.L.R. 41 Mad. 169 was a Full Bench case upon the applicability of the general provisions of the Limitation Act to the period of limitation for preferring an appeal against orders made under the Provincial Insolvency Act.

(2.) It did not purport to decide anything as to the period of limitation provided by Section 59 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act 1864. Srinivasa Ayyangar V/s. Secretary of State (1912) I.L.R. 38 Mad. 92 and Venkata V/s. Chengadu (1888) I.L.R. 12 M. 168 are decisions considered in Lingayya V/s. Chinna Narayana (1917) I.L.R. 41 Mad. 169 and while it may be said the effect of the judgment of the learned Judges, who were parties to this latest Full Bench was to throw doubt upon the principles upon which the earlier decisions proceeded, the latter, which related to questions of limitation arising out of the Revenue Recovery Act, were not directly overruled.

(3.) In the Provincial Insolvency Act III of 1907 Section 45 gives 90 days for preferring on appeal to the High Court to a person aggrieved by an order made by a District Judge. Section 59 of Act II of 1864 gives 6 months for a suit in a Civil Court upon a cause of action arising out of proceedings under that Act, the cause of action being that the plaintiff should deem himself aggrieved by those proceedings. In the present case the plaintiff alleged that he was unaware of the sale having taken place till January 30 1918, and it is difficult to see how it was possible. for him to deem himself aggrieved before even he was aware of the sale. The language of the two Acts thus is not identical.