MUTHUKRISHNA AIYAR Vs. PAKKIRI VOIKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Munsif s statement that there is no stipulation in Exhibit A admitting liability so long as they continue in service" is irrelevant. If he means that even if they continued in service and thus paid interest within three years before suit, it would not save limitation, his view appears to be erroneous Mylan v. Annavi Madan 29 M. 234 : 16 M.L.J. 99 and Kariyappa v. Rachapa 24 B. 493 : 2 Bom. L.R. 378.

(2.) The District Munsif is requested to give a definite finding on the evidence on record as to whether the defendant and Kulandan Voikaran worked under the plaintiffs and during what period or periods they so worked.

(3.) The finding will be submitted within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the records by the lower Court and one Week will be allowed for filing objections. * In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the District Munsif of Tiruvalur submitted the following Finding