CHANDRA KESAVALU CHETTY Vs. SPPERUMAL CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decision of the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court in O.S. No. 774 of 1935. The plaintiffs are the two sons of one Chinna Ramiah Chetty who was the owner of a house in Selvavihayakaf Koil Street, Madras City. He sold this house on the 30 of August, 1911, to the defendant S.P. Perumal Chettiar. The purchase price was fixed at Rs. 2,600 and out of this sum, Rs. 800 was left with the vendee on condition that he should keep it until Kondal Chetty, a minor illegitimate son of the vendor, should attain his majority. The defendant undertook at the same time to pay interest at the rate of 14 annas per cent, per mensem on the amount of Rs. 800. Chinna Ramiah Chetty, the vendor, died in 1920 and his illegitimate son Kondal Chetty is said to have disappeared shortly afterwards. In 1930 the plaintiffs who are the legitimate sons of Chinna Ramiah Chetty demanded payment of the Rs. 800 to them with interest at the rate of 10i per cent, per annum from June, 1920, when their father was said to have died. The defendant repudiated liability and the plaintiffs filed this suit in forma pauperis on the 11 of July, 1905.

(2.) The learned judge of the City Civil Court framed the following issues: (1) When did Kondal Chetty attain majority? (2) At what date can Kondal Chetty be presumed to have been dead? And is he dead? (3) Are the plaintiffs entitled to claim the money as members of the joint family consisting of themselves and Chinna Ramiah Chetty, deceased? (4) Are the plaintiffs entitled to claim the money as surviving members of the joint family consisting of themselves and Kondal Chetty? (5) Are the defendants trustees in respect of the said money and are they bound to repay the said money as such trustees to the plaintiff? (6) Is the suit barred by limitation? (7) Are the plaintiffs entitled to a charge on the suit properties for the amount claimed? (8) What amount, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to? (9) To what reliefs are the, plaintiffs entitled?

(3.) In his judgment the learned Judge held that the suit was barred by limitation. He held that Kondal Chetty must have attained his majority in the year 1922. He held that the money was payable on Kondal Chetty's attainment of majority and since the suit was not filed till 11 of July, 1935, he held that, whether the six years rule applied or the twelve years rule, it would be barred by limitation. He held on the second issue that Kondal Chetty might be presumed to be dead but he did not express any opinion as to the date of his death. On issues 3 and 4 he found in favour of the plaintiffs. This appeal has been admitted, again in forma pauperis, at the instance of the plaintiffs.