1910 (4) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of the starting point of limitation for an appeal under Section 25 of Act XXVIII of 1860.
2. Interpretation of the language of Section 13 of Act IV of 1897, Madras, regarding the starting point of limitation.
3. Analysis of Section 24 of Act IV of 1897 in relation to the recording and communication of decisions.
4. Understanding the concept of passing a decision and its implications on limitation.
5. Clarification on the date of communication of a decision under Section 24 of Act IV of 1897.
6. Examination of the evidence and conclusions in a dispute regarding the location of drainage channels.

Analysis:
1. The judgment discusses the starting point of limitation for an appeal under Section 25 of Act XXVIII of 1860, emphasizing that the decision is considered passed when communicated to the parties, as established in previous cases like Annamalai v. Cloete and Seshama v. Sankara.

2. It delves into the interpretation of Section 13 of Act IV of 1897, Madras, highlighting that the starting point is the date of the decision passed under Section 24. The judgment asserts that the date of the decision is when it is pronounced or published to the parties, aligning with precedents from earlier Acts.

3. Section 24 of Act IV of 1897 is analyzed concerning the recording and communication of decisions. The judgment explores the difference between the date of the order and the date of communication, emphasizing that limitation starts upon communication of the decision to the parties.

4. The concept of passing a decision is scrutinized, indicating that a decision is only passed when pronounced or published to allow affected parties to understand its contents. The judgment emphasizes that the date of the decision is crucial for the commencement of limitation.

5. The judgment clarifies that the date of communication of a decision under Section 24 of Act IV of 1897 may not necessarily be the date parties receive the order. It suggests that limitation starts from the date the decision is announced, even if parties choose not to listen, emphasizing the importance of communication.

6. Lastly, the judgment analyzes a dispute regarding the location of drainage channels, evaluating the evidence presented by both parties. It concludes that the drainage channel likely occupies the bed of Mattavanikodu based on the evidence and probabilities, ultimately dismissing the appeal and directing the decree to be satisfied within three months.