RAMALAGU SERVAI Vs. SOLAI SERVAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Lower Courts were clearly right in applying Art. 62 of the Limitation Act to the facts of this case and Arunachala V/s. Ramasamy, (1883) I.L.R. 6 Mad. 191 Vaidynatha Aiyar v. Aiyasami Aiyar (1908) I.L.R. 32 Mad. 191 Lakshmi Narasimha V/s. Lakshmamma (1912) 25 M.L.J. 531 Sankunni V/s. Govinda (1912) I.L.R. 37 Mad. 381 and Segu Chidambaramma V/s. Segu Balayya (1911) 2 M.W.N. 467: 12 I.C. 704 are authorities for holding that this Article, and not Art. 95, applies where one member of a family which has become divided collects a debt due to the family and keeps the amount. The collection having been made on 2 May, 1909 this suit should have been brought before 2 May, 1912 under Art. 62.

(2.) Reliance is placed on 1 defendants reply notice Ex C-2 as extending the period of limitation, because the fact of collection was suppressed therein on 11-6-1909.

(3.) But the plaintiff's cause of action to sue arose by reason of the 1 defendant having kept back the plaintiff's share when he collected it on 2 May, 1909 and thus time had already begun to run when Exhibits C. and C-2 were exchanged.