Authored By : Beverley, T. Ameer Ali

Beverley, J.

1. This is a suit upon a mortgage bond, and the onlyquestion raised in this appeal is whether or not the suit was instituted withintwelve years from the date on which the money sued for became due.

2. The bonds fated the 8th Assar 1283 Fusli, correspondingwith the 14th June 1876, and the suit was instituted on the 12th June 1894. Thequestion turns upon the construction of the document as to what was the dateupon which the money became payable. The stipulation in the bond was to repaythe money "in the month of Jeyth 1289 Fusli, being a period of sixyear." The period of six years from the date of execution of the bondwould carry us to the 14th June 1882, and the plaintiff contends that thatshould be regarded as the due date irrespective of all mention of the month ofJeyth 1289 Fusli. The defendant on the other hand pleads that the debtor boundhimself to repay the money on or before the 29th Jeyth 1289 Fusli (there beingonly twenty-nine days in the month of Jeyth in that year) whichcorrospond(sic)ancy with 1st of June 1882, and that consequently this suit isbarred.

3. The lower Court has held that the plaintiffs contentionis correct an(sic) accordingly the defendant has appealed.

4. The deed having been (sic)convented on the 8th Assar 1283were possibility of table that it had been (sic) days previously, thatpurchasers being month of Jeyth 128(sic) drafted so(sic) my stipulation wasinse(sic)mable probability or exe(sic)de effect that he 3, and that when thesingle in six years, it (sic)ght to which the to th(sic)d is may (sic)he moneywould be repayable 289. The (sic) that period would expire in the month ofJeyth (sic) is whether the parties intended that the money should in (sic) learnedthe execution of the bond, without reference (sic) whether it was intended thatthe money should be repa(sic) circumstance casually mentioned that that monthwas within the per(sic)nt the plaint the date of the execution of the deed. Iam of opinion that t(sic)f the num more liberal and proper construction toplace upon the deedifs had fa that the debtor was to have a period of full sixyears from the injunct execution of the deed within which to repay the money.Th(sic)J., was to taken by the Bombay High Court in a precisely similar case,(sic)m lling Runao Bujaji v. Babaji I.L.R. 6 Bom. 83. That a lifebelt annexeshould be given in cases of doubt such as the present was also (sic) embling ofAlmas Banee v. Mahomed Buja I.L.R. 6 Cal. 239 decided to in any in which it washeld that in consequence of the mention of the 30 (sic) deed it was intendedthat the debtor should have full thirty days in (sic) case within which torepay the money, although as a matter of fact there entitle twenty-nine days inthat particular month of Pous. That decision wa(sic)ances by the Madras HighCourt in the case of Gnanasammanda (sic)deceive Palaniyandi Pillai I.L.R. 17Mad. 61. Upon these authorities (sic)itation upon the ground that in construingacts of limitation the Court is bo(sic) them a liberal interpretation, I am ofopinion that the decision of Court is correct, and that this appeal must bedismissed with costs.

T. Ameer Ali, J.

5. I must say that the point is by no 1. into the (sic)in;mind Section 25 of the Limitation Act does not apply use would this, and I amnot prepared to follow the ruling of the Bombay High Court. The question is oneof intention. What was the intention of the parties with regard to the documentwhich is before us Whether the intention was to make the repayment in Jeyth1289, or was it to be made within six years from the time of the execution ofthe document There are indications in the document that Jeyth 1289 was to betaken as the time for the repayment of the loan, and the suits that werebrought by the plaintiff also give grounds, as contended for by the defendantspleader, for the view that the time for repayment, was fixed in Jeyth 1289. Butalthough I have a doubt on the question before us, my doubt is not so strong asto justify my differing from the view taken by my learned colleague. Itherefore concur in dismissing the appeal with costs.

.

Dhan Kunwar and Ors.vs. Latifunnessa (02.02.1897 -CALHC)