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
3 paragraphs · 176 wordsField, J.—The only point in this case is what period of limitation is applicable to a suit brought to enforce a palla, or turn of worshipping an idol.
The lower Court have followed the decision of Eshan Chunder Roy v. Monmohini Dassi ILR 4 Cal. 683 which decided that a palla, or right to worship an idol in turn, is a periodically recurring right within the meaning of Article 131 of the second schedule of the present Limitation Act, XV of 1877.
It has been contended before us, that this article is not applicable, and that the article which ought to be applied to a case of this kind is Article 120, which provides six years'' limitation for suits for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the second schedule. We are unable to assent to this contention, and, as at present advised, we see no sufficient ground for differing from the decision in Eshan Chunder Roy v. Monmohini Dassi ILR 4 Cal. 683. The appeal will, therefore, be dismissed with costs.