Limitation runs from communication of a decision, and boundary findings may stand when evidence supports the physical features and history.

Where limitation runs from the date of a decision, the decision is treated as passed only when it is communicated or otherwise made known to the parties with a reasonable opportunity to know its contents. On that basis, limitation for the suit began from communication, so the suit was not time-barred. On the boundary and drainage dispute, the court accepted the factual finding that the existing drainage channel corresponded to the former channel and that the alleged southern channel was not proved, supported by surrounding physical features, witness evidence, and older boundary descriptions. The finding on the merits was upheld and the dismissal with costs affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether limitation for the suit began from the date of the Survey Officer's decision or from the date on which the decision was communicated to the parties. (ii) Whether the findings on the position of the drainage channels and the disputed boundary were .

Issue (i): Whether limitation for the suit began from the date of the Survey Officer's decision or from the date on which the decision was communicated to the parties.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the relevant Madras enactments distinguished between the making of an order and its communication, but the Court held that a decision cannot be treated as passed until it is pronounced or published in a manner giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of knowing its contents. The earlier authorities on the same point were followed, and the provisions relied upon by the Government Pleader were held not to support the running of limitation before communication to the parties.

Conclusion: Limitation began from the date of communication of the decision, and the suit was not barred.

Issue (ii): Whether the findings on the position of the drainage channels and the disputed boundary were .

Analysis: On the evidence, the Court found that the probabilities favoured the plaintiff's version that the existing drainage channel occupied the site of the former channel, while the alleged southern channel was not shown to have existed. The surrounding physical features, witness evidence, and the older boundary descriptions supported the conclusion reached by the District Judge.

Conclusion: The finding on the merits was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed both on limitation and on the merits, and the dismissal of the suit with costs was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes limitation run from the date of a decision, the decision is passed only when it is communicated or otherwise made known to the parties with a reasonable opportunity to know its contents.

---