9911796707
TMI Blog1912 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rights. This demand was refused by the defendant on 19th of July. The plaintiff took no action for more than two years after this refusal. Consequently under the provisions of Section 4 and Article 35 of the Limitation Act of 1877 any suit for restitution was liable to dismissal. The particular form of remedy was barred even though the plaintiff's right to the services of his wife remained. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs since the refusal of the defendant in 1896. 3. The learned Judge, considering himself bound by the decision of this Court in Vinayak Govind v. Babaji (1879) I. L. R. 4 Bom 230 that a remedy which had become barred could not be revived by the passing of a new Limitation Act, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In our opinion his decision must be affirmed. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Act of 1871 and the Act of 1877 could not revive the plaintiff's right so barred-a point which was indeed decided in regard to the Limitation Acts of 1859 and 1871 in the case of Appasami Odayar v. Subramanyd Odayar (1888) L. R. 15 I. A. 167. 4. On behalf of the plaintiff reference was made to Rex v. Chandra Dharma [1905] 2 K. B. 335, and this case also appears to have raised do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
