VENKATACHALLAM PILLAI Vs. KRISHNASWAMI PATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Subordinate Judge has returned his findings.

(2.) The suit, so far as it is based on the covenant for title is found to be barred by limitation and that is not disputed. So far as it is based on misrepresentation, the claim would also be barred. For, even assuming that Article 95 applies, as held in Punnayil Kuttu v. Raman Nair 31 M. 230 : 18 M.L.J. 19 : 4 M.L.T. 80, to such a claim, the suit was brought more than 3 years after the date of the second appeal decree; so that, making every allowance in plaintiff s favour, the claim based on misrepresentation also fails.

(3.) But the claim based on the indemnity bond remains. I agree with the Subordinate Judge that the language of the bond is wide enough to include loss caused by an adverse title being set up by third parties as was done in this case.