SENTHATTIKALAI PANDIA CHINNA THAMBIAR (DECEASED) Vs. KRAMA AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals from the orders of the District Judge of Tinnevelly, dated February 10, 1934. in three connected appeals allowing the appeals and remanding the suits to the trial Court for fresh disposal. The suits were dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that they were barred by limitation, and the other issues framed in them were not decided. The lower Appellate Court was of opinion that there was no bar of limitation, and therefore, remanded the suits for fresh disposal.

(2.) The present appeals are by the defendant in all the three suits, namely, the zamindar of Sivagiri and the only point raised in these appeals is whether the suits are barred by limitation. The real question is which is the article of the Limitation Act applicable to the suits in question.

(3.) If the suits are governed by Art. 131 of the Limitation Act as contended by the respondents, there can be no doubt that the suits are not barred by limitation. It is, however, contended by the appellant that Art. 131 of the Limitation Act cannot apply to the present suits because they are not suits in respect of periodically recurring rights. Art. 131 of the Limitation Act relates to suits to establish a periodically recurring right. No doubt there has been a good deal of conflict of opinion as regards the question whether the words to establish a periodically recurring right would include a claim to recover arrears of money due under the right claimed, but so far as this Court is concerned, the matter is concluded by the Full Bench decision in Zamorin of Calicut V/s. A chutha Menon 38 M 916 : 23 Ind. Cas. 806 : (1914) MWN 228 : 15 MLT 226 : 26 MLJ 377 in which it was held that the words to establish a periodically recurring right are sufficient to include claims to recover arrears.