AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 98 words
Waller, J.—The only question for consideration is that of limitation. The decisions of this Court seems to me to lay down that the claim for
faslis 1326 and 1327 is barred by limitation vide Ramakrishna Chetty v. Subbaraya Iyer [1915] 38 Mad. 101 Sundaram Iyer v. Muthu Ganapathi
Iyer [1912] M. W. N. 652 and Raja of Pittapur v. Venkata Subba Row [1916] 39 Mad. 645 and that it makes no difference whether the landlord
is suing on a registered deed or not.
2.
The appeals are dismissed. Second Appeal No. 480 of 1925 is dismissed with costs.