AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 156 wordsIt is contended, in the first instance, that the suit brought by the junior members of a tarwad is not maintainable. The karnavan is included as a
defendant in the suit, and, as he has failed to sue till the period of twelve years has almost expired, we are of opinion that the suit by the junior
members cannot be validly objected to.
The other question is whether the suit is time-barred?
Applying the principle of the decision of this Court in Pachamuthu v. Chinnappan ILR 10 Mad. 213 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court
in Rughuba Dyal Sahuv. Bhikya Lai Misser ILR 12 Cal. 69, we find the lower Appellate Court is right in holding the suit to be not time-barred.
The lower Courts have found, as a fact, that the money was not advanced for tarwad necessity.
This second appeal fails, therefore, and is dismissed with costs.