RAMAMURTHI AIYAR Vs. SUBRAMANIA AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs representatives, who tog ether with the plaintiff (since deceased) were appellants to the lower Court, put in their appeal some time after the period allowed for entering the appeal had expired.

(2.) They had made no application for copies of the decree or judgment appealed from but put in copies obtained by the 2nd defendant who was one of the respondents to the appeal. The Subordinate Judge held that the appeal was in time, because he held that the time taken by the 2nd defendant in obtaining the copies put in could be considered, and also because the plaintiffs representatives were minors and limitation did not run against them.

(3.) We are of opinion that neither of these grounds can be supported and must hold that the appeal was out of time. The memorandum to appeal to the lower Court must be rejected, the decree of the lower Court set aside and the decree of the District Munsif restored with costs of the 3 and 4 defendants who are appellants here, in this and in the lower appellate Court. The appellants in the lower appellate Court must pay the costs of the 3 and 4 defendants, the respondents in that court and all the respondents here must pay the appellants costs in this court.