Chitty subscription recovery depends on prior written demand, with limitation confined to instalments within three years of suit.

A foreman's consolidated claim for future chitty subscriptions was held to depend on the Travancore Chitties Act, which required a prior written demand before such recovery became enforceable, so limitation did not run merely from default in an instalment. Article 37 of the Limitation Act was therefore inapplicable to the consolidated claim. On the alternative limitation basis, recovery was confined to instalments falling within three years before suit, because earlier instalments were already time-barred. The decree was accordingly reduced to the amount recoverable within the limitation period, and the balance was disallowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a claim by a foreman for consolidated recovery of future chitty subscriptions was governed by Article 37 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or by Section 32(1) of the Travancore Chitties Act, 1120; (ii) whether, even if the residuary article applied, recovery could extend to instalments that had become due more than three years before suit.

Issue (i): whether a claim by a foreman for consolidated recovery of future chitty subscriptions was governed by Article 37 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or by Section 32(1) of the Travancore Chitties Act, 1120

Analysis: Section 32(1) prohibited a foreman from claiming consolidated payment of future subscriptions unless a written demand had first been made, and that mandate was treated as an integral part of the chitty bargain in the applicable area. Article 37 applied only where the contract itself made the whole balance immediately payable on default. Since the enforceability of the consolidated claim under the Travancore statute arose only on a written demand, limitation did not commence on the mere default in payment of an instalment.

Conclusion: Article 37 did not govern the suit; the demand-based scheme under Section 32(1) applied.

Issue (ii): whether, even if the residuary article applied, recovery could extend to instalments that had become due more than three years before suit

Analysis: On the alternative footing that Article 113 applied, the claim could survive only in respect of instalments falling within three years prior to the filing of the suit. Instalments which had fallen due earlier were already time-barred and could not be recovered.

Conclusion: Recovery was confined to the instalments within three years of the suit, and the earlier instalments were barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition succeeded only in part, with the decree reduced to the amount recoverable within the limitation period and the remainder disallowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special chitty statute requires a written demand before consolidated future subscriptions become enforceable, limitation for the consolidated claim does not run from the date of default; at most, recovery is limited to amounts not already barred on the date of suit.

---