1912 (9) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t him. On the nth of July the plaintiff sent her a notice demanding restitution of conjugal 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 reme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hether it has become barred by the expiry, during the currency of the Act of 1877 of two years 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&#39....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...."It is clear that on the 1st of April 1873 the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation 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 ma....