BARADWAJA MUDALIAR Vs. ARUNACHALA GURUKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant is the appellant. The appeal is against the order of remand passed by the appellate Court which held that the plaintiffs suit was not wholly barred by limitation, the Court of first instance, having held otherwise and dismissed the suit.

(2.) The material allegations in the plaint are as follows: (a) The two plaintiffs (father and son) are the hereditary archakas of the famous temple at Tiruvannamalai. The first defendant, appellant before us, is the trustee of the temple. The third defendant is the temple peishkar. The first defendant in June 1912 suspended the plaintiffs from office. The third defendant intimated this fact to the plaintiffs on 19th June 1912 and the suspension of the plaintiffs lasted till 3rd July 1912; (b) The plaintiffs contend that the suspension order was illegal and unjust and that the third defendant maliciously made misrepresentations to the first defendant and made the first defendant pass such an unjust order; and: (c) The fourth defendant discharged the duties of the office during the fourteen days during which the plaintiffs remained under suspension. The plaint concluded for the following reliefs: (1) Pay for the days of suspension Rs. 4-14-4, (2) the value of perquisites from other sources during such period Rs. 25 and (3) damages for mental distress, loss of dignity, etc., Us. 50. Total Rs. 79-14-4.

(3.) The District Munsif dismissed the suit applying Article 36 of the Limitation Act which allows two years for a suit for compensation for any malfeasance, misfeasance or non-feasance independent of contract and not specially provided for. The suit was brought on 28th June 1915, the cause of action having arisen on 19th June 1912, more than two years before the suit was brought. The plaint was filed on the day on which the Tiruvannamalai District Munsif s Court opened after the summer vacation and if the limitation period of three years under Article 62 or Article 102 applied, the claim for at least Rs. 4-14-4 (the pay) was not barred. If Article 120 applied, which provides six years to the claim for pay, then also, the District Munsif was not justified in dismissing the whole claim as barred.