AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishnan, J.—The Subordinate Judge has returned his findings. The suit, so far as it is based on the covenant for title is found to be barred
by limitation and that is not disputed. So far as it is based on misrepresentation, the claim would also be barred. For, even assuming that Article 95
applies, as held in Punnayil Kuttu v. Raman Nair 31 M.P 230 : 18 M.L.J. 19 : 4 M.L.T. 80 to such a claim, the suit was brought more than 3
years after the date of the second appeal decree; so that, making every allowance in plaintiff''s favour, the claim based on misrepresentation also
fails.
But the claim based on the indemnity bond remains. I agree with the Subordinate Judge that the language of the bond is wide enough to include
loss caused by an adverse title being set up by third parties as was done in this case.
The covenant talks of security, etc, muthaliathu in Tamil and later on contemplates the whole property being lost which may be due to minors''
suits or otherwise. The suit, so far as it is based on the bond, is within time as held by the Subordinate Judge. Article 116 has to be applied as the
bond is a registered one and not Article 83. See Ram Dulari v. Hardwari Lal 48 Ind. Cas. 18 : 40 A.P 605 : 16 A.L.J. 706 and Parvataneni v.
Lanka Rambrahman 47 Ind. Cas. 924 : 35 M.L.J. 124 : 8 L.W. 142 : 24 M.L.T. 104 The same view has been taken in suits for rent under
registered lease-deeds, though there is a special Article about rent, Article 110, Tricomdas Cooverji Bhoja v. Gopinath Thakur 39 Ind. Cas. 156 :
44 C.P 759 : 1 P.L.J. 262 : 15 A.L.J. 217 : 25 C.L.J. 279 : 32 M.L.J. 357 : 21 M.L.T. 262 : 21 C.W.N. 577 : (1917) M.W.N. 368 : 5 L.W.
654 : 19 Bom. L.R. 450 : 44 I.A. 65 The claim on the indemnity bond must, therefore, be allowed.
The bond, however, provides for a payment of Rs. 100 only and I do not see how plaintiff can claim to be paid the costs of his litigation over
and above that amount. It is, however, claimed that interest should be allowed. The money became payable on the date of the second appeal
decree and it was a sum certain payable under a written instrument. It seems to me, therefore, that interest could be allowed under the Interest Act
if not otherwise. I, therefore, allow ''per cent'' interest on the amount.
The decree of the lower Court will, therefore, be modified by reducing the amount of decree to Rs. 136 and further interest as allowed by the
lower Court with proportionate costs to each party in both Courts.