Konumuthu Naicker vs Veeralakkammal and others

Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.—The point arising for consideration in the second appeal is very short. The plaintiff is the appellant. His father sold certain family properties for the discharge of family debts and executed a sale deed on 9th July 1931 in favour of Alagirisami Gouda, predecessor-in title, of the defendants. In the deed of sale there is a condition recited that Alagiriswami should re-convey the properties on repayment of the debts within a period of four years. This suit is filed by the plaintiff on 26th February 1948 (or enforcement of this agreement for re-sale evidenced by Ex. A. 2. It is clear from the above narration that the right to demand a reconveyance was conditioned by a term that it should be exercised within a period of four years from 9th July 1931.Admittedly the consideration was not paid and there was no demand for reconveyance within the period stipulated. The claim, however, was sought to be maintained on the ground that the plaintiffs father died on11th April 1933 before the end of four years, that the plaintiff was a minor on that date and that the suit claiming a reconveyance was in tiara. The learned Subordinate Judge reversing the decree of the learned District Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the term of the agreement had not been fulfilled and that consequently the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought.

I am clearly of the opinion that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. The argument of learned Counsel for the appellant that the right of the plaintiff to the relief is governed by the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act proceeds on a fallacy. It is no doubt true that if the right to reconveyance had been established, the period of time within which that accrued right could be enforced would be governed by the Indian Limitation Act. But here the accrual of the right was dependent upon the term of the contract namely that it should be exercised within a period of four years from 9th July 1931 and as this was not admittedly done, no right accrued in the plaintiff of his father to demand a reconveyance. Therefore there is no question of invoking the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act to sustain the claim. For instance in the present case if an offer had been made before July 1935 to pay up the consideration and a demand had been made for the reconveyance of the property, the right to obtain a specific performance of that agreement could have been enforced within the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act by making allowance for the minority of the plaintiff. But here no cause of action accrued at all, for there was a preliminary contractual condition subject to which alone the right could be asserted which has not been fulfilled. The Indian Limitation Act could not avail the plaintiff to extend the period within which the right accrued. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. (No leave).