AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 89

32.51. Case law as to bonds.- Application of Articles 28, 29 or 30 would depend upon the terms and conditions of the bond in question. Such being the case, it is not surprising that certain amount of conflict did arise regarding the application of these articles. The conflict was, however, predicated more on the interpretation of the term of the "bond", that on any conditions of interpretation of the text of the articles.1-5

Article 27 is a general article covering breaches of promise to do anything at a specified time or upon the happening of a specified contingency. Certain conflict has emerged when the article is applied to breaches arising out of the bonds. For example, in a Madras case6, where a bond was executed for subscriptions payable to a chit fund in specified instalments, with the condition that the whole amount would become exigible on failure to pay any instalment on demand, the Court laid emphasis on the expression "on demand" contained in the bond and held that the claim for the whole amount due could be based only on the bond itself, and not on the original cause of action. This ruling did not follow an earlier one of the same High Court.7

1. Balakrishnudu v. Narayanaswami, AIR 1914 Mad 4 (6).

2. Hari La! v. Thamman La!, AIR 1923 Oudh 19.

3. Narain Das v. Manna┬░ Lal, AIR 1935 All 405.

4. Ramiah v. Sankaranarayana, AIR 1958 Ker 246.

5. Gauri Shankar v. Surju, 1881 ILR 3 All 276 (279) (DB).

6. Seetharamayyar v. Munisami, AIR 1919 Mad 462.

7. Surayya v. Tirumalandhan Bapirasu, AIR 1916 Mad 486.

32.52. Liabilities of the principal and surety1 and computation of the period of limitation based on a promissory note,2 have also given rise to some conflicting decisions.

1. Charu Chandra v. Faithful, AIR 1919 Cal 636.

2. Somanath Raju Ramamurty, AIR 1957 Ori 106.

32.53. No change needed.- However the conflict regarding the application of these articles to the facts of a particular case turns more on the construction to be put on the particular document in question, rather than on a defect in the phraseology used in these articles. We therefore recommend no change in the text of these articles on these points.

32.54. Article 31.- Article 31 reads as unde.-

"On a bill of exchange or promissory note payable at a fixed time after date.

Three years.

When the bill presented."

It is identical with Article 69 of the Acts of 1908 and 1877, and with Article 68 of the Act of 1871.

No change is needed in the article.

32.55. Article 32.- Article 32 reads as unde.-

"On a bill of exchange payable at sight, or after sight, but not at a fixed time.

Three years.

When the bill is presented."

It is identical with Article 70 of the Acts of 1908 and 1877.

Article 69 of the Act of 1871 read as unde.-

"On a bill of exchange payable at sight.

Three years.

When the bill is presented."

32.56. Article 33.- Article 33 reads as unde.-

"On a bill of exchange payable at a particular place.

Three years.

When the bill is presented at that place."

It is identical with Article 71 of the Acts of 1908 and 1877, and with Article 70 of the Act of 1871.

No change is needed in the article.

32.57. Article 34.- Article 34 reads as unde.-

"On a bill of exchange or promissory note payable at a fixed time after sight or after demand.

Three years.

When the fixed time expires."

It is identical with Article 72 of the Acts of 1908 and 1877, and with Article 71 of the Act of 1871.

No change is needed in the article.

32.58. Article 35.- Article 35 reads as unde.-

"On a bill of exchange or promissory note payable at a fixed time after sight or after demand and not accompanied by any writing restraining or postponing the right to sue.

Three years.

The date of the bill or note."

The article has not undergone any change in the phraseology used, except that Article 72 of the Limitation Act of 1871 had provided the starting point of limitation as the date of demand, which, in the Act of 1877, was changed to the date of the bill or note. This brought the law of limitation in line with the technical meaning of "on demand".1

89.142 Conflicting views expressed by the Bombay2 and Allahabad3 High Courts are sometimes referred to under this article. But the decisions referred to relate to problems of Hindu law and obligations imposed thereunder upon the son for the debts of the deceased father.

Recently, this article (along with Article 112) came up for consideration in the Allahabad High Court,4 which held that when the claim of a private person was barred by time on the date of his death, the devolution of his property on the Government by escheat would not enable the Government to take advantage of the extended period of Article 112, so as to bring the cause of action within limitation. Herein also, the text of Article 35 has not presented any difficulty and we recommend no change therein.

1. Cf. Rowe v. Young, (1820) 2 Brod & B 165 (180): 21 RR 91.

2. Narottarndas v. Chitta, MR 1939 Born 464 (465).

3. Narsingh .Misra v. Laiji Misra, 1901 1LR 23 All 206 (208, 209).

4. Roop Kishore Seth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1978 AWC 162, referred to in (1978) Yearly Digest column 2555.

32.60. Article.-Introductory.- Article 36 reads as unde.-

"On a promissory note or bond payable by instalments.

Three years.

The date of the bill or note."

It is identical with Article 74 of the Acts of 1908 and 1877 and Article 74 of the Act of 1871.



The Limitation Act, 1963 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys