Pichammal Pethammal and others vs Parameswarar Parameswarar

Sadasivam, J.—The appellants in the second appeal were defendants in O. S. No. 442 of 1956, on the file of the Additional District

Munsif''s Court of Nagercoil. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of melwaram from Kumbhom crop of 1120 on a charge of the suit properly

and got a decree which was confirmed in appeal. The only point that was argued in second appeal was on the question of limitation. The suit was

filed on 30th January 1956 after the Indian Limitation Act was extended to the Travancore State on 1st April 1951. S. 30 of the Indian Limitation

Act introduced by Act III of 1951 provides :

Notwithstanding anything herein contained, any suit for which the period of limitation prescribed by this Act is shorter than the period of limitation

prescribed by any law corresponding to this Act in force in a Part B State which is repealed by the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, may be

instituted within the period of two years next after the coming into force of the Act in that Part B State or within the period prescribed for such suit

by such corresponding law, whichever period expires first.

Art. 119 of the Travancore Limitation Regulation of 1100 was the relevant Article which would have governed the present suit, if it had been

filed prior to 1st April 1951 and it runs as follows :

To recover money or paddy due under the hypothecation bonds or to enforce payment of money or customary dues charged upon immoveable

properly 12 years when the money or paddy sued for becomes due.

The question that has to be considered in this second appeal is what is the corresponding Article of the Indian Limitation Act which would

govern the suit. The learned Advocate for the appellants contended that Art. 110 of the Limitation Act would apply, while the learned Advocate

for the respondent relied on Art. 131 of the Limitation Act as the relevant Article to be applied to the suit claim. It is necessary to consider the

nature of the claim in order to find out the relevant Article of the Limitation Act applicable to the suit claim. In discussing issue No. 2 the trial Court

has found that there is practically no difference between melwaram and Tiruppuvaram and that it was conceded by both sides. The learned

Additional District Munsif has pointed out the nature of the right claimed in the suit in the next sentence which runs as follows :

The State by diverting a portion of the tax due to it in favour of others in consideration of services rendered creates a charge over the property by

whatever name the right to collect is known.

Such a right to collect arrears of Thiruppuvaram is not based on contract or on any relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and

the respondent and such a claim cannot be described as one for arrears of rent within the meaning of Art. 110 of the Limitation Act. The

contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent that the claim would fall under Art. 131 of the Limitation Act is clearly supported by

authority. In State v. Namboodripad AIR 1959 Ker. 1 (F.B.), it was held that a suit for recovery of arrears of Thiruppuvaram could not fall under

Art. 115 of the Limitation Act as the claim was founded upon a grant by the State and not upon a contract between the parties. The Full Bench

decision however held that the claim was governed by Art. 120 and not by Art. 131 or 132 of the Limitation Act. But in doing so the Kerala High

Court dissented from the decisions of the Madras High Court in Zamorin of Calicut v. Achuta Menon ILR 1938 Mad. 916 (F.B.), and R.

Thangaraja Pandian Vs. Veeraraghava Iyengar, where it was held that Art. 131 would apply to a suit to recover sums due under a periodically

recurring right whether there was a prayer for declaration of the plaintiff''s right or not. Having regard to the Bench decisions of this High Court

referred to above, I find that the suit is one falling under Art. 131 of the Limitation Act, which provides for the same period of 12 years as Art. 119

of the Travancore Limitation Regulation of 1100. Hence S. 30 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked in the case. The respondent is therefore

entitled to claim arrears of melwaram for 12 years. The decree and judgment of the lower Court are therefore correct and are confirmed and the

appeal is dismissed with costs. No leave.