Rathai Ammal and Others vs R. Subramania Ayyar and Others

On the first question-as to the date of the 1st respondent''s (R. Subramania Iyer''s) birth--we see no reason to differ from the Court below. On

the next, whether, on the terms of the decree, the respondent should not furnish security, we think that the intention was that the minor''s next friend

should furnish security. He could not do so himself. Now that he is a major, no security is necessary. Apart from that, the decree provides that

security should be furnished only if the amount was paid by a certain date. The only remaining question is whether the respondent was entitled to

the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act. Two Madras Oases have been cited. The first is, Narasimha Deo Garu v. Krishnachandra Deo Garu

52 Ind. Cas. 725 : 37 M.L.J. 256 : (1919) M.W.N. 440 : 10 L.W. 156. It floes not consider the applicability of Section 4 of the Act. The other is

Marri Narasayya and Others Vs. Peruri Krishnamurthi, . It is directly in point and we propose to follow it. What Section 4 says is that, if the time

for presenting an application expires while a Court is closed, the applicant may present it to the Court on the date when it opens again. The date of

presentation goes back to the day when it ought to have been but could not be presented. The appeal is dismissed with costs.