BHALCHANDRA TRIMBAK DESHPANDE Vs. DATTATRAYA JAIKRISHNA DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIMITATION is the only question involved in the appeal.

(2.) THE suit is for arrears of lawajama payable to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff's right to his share is not denied nor is the extent of his share in question. The plaint itself makes that plain. What the plaintiff says is that the amount due on the basis of these facts is a certain figure. The defendant says that it is considerably less because the defendant is entitled to certain deductions.

(3.) IN Nazarali v. Akaji (28) 11 N.L.J. 62 on which the lower Courts have relied the right was denied and not merely the amount payable. That case is therefore not in point. As regards the Madras Full Bench in Zamorin of Calicut v. Achutha Menon A.I.R. 1914 Mad. 377 I prefer the opinion of Tyabji, J. in his referring order to that of the Pull Bench and Ayling J. to the extent that Article 131 is inappropriate. The view of the Full Bench has not been accepted in other High Courts and Bombay, Allahabad and Patna apply Article 62: see Janardan Trimbak v. Dinkar Hari ; Hidayat Ullah v. Gokul Chand ; Baidyanathjiu v. Har Dutt Tewari A.I.R. 1926 Pat. 205 and Lachmi Narain v. Turab-un-nissa (12) 34 All. 246.