R. Rungasawmi Aiyangar vs C.R. Srinivasa Aiyangar

Krishnaswami Aiyar, J.—I think the Subordinate Judge is wrong in his view regarding the claim with reference to the sum of Rs. 50 asked to

be paid to Abu Bakar Sait. The facts are : The plaintiff gave a certain sum of money to the defendant and asked him to make a payment of Rs. 50

to one Abu Bakar to whom the plaintiff owed money. The position of the defendant was that of an agent who defaulted to make the payment. Abu

Bakar sued the plaintiff and obtained a decree. It is perfectly clear that on the date of the decree, at all events, the plaintiff knew that his agent, the

defendant, was guilty of misconduct in not making the payment which he had required him to make. The Subordinate Judge calculates the period of

limitation from the date of the payment by the plaintiff to Abu Bakar. I cannot see how that furnishes the starting point for limitation. The case

appears to me to fall within Article 90 of the Limitation Act and. this view is supported by the decision in Civil Revision Petition No. 763 of 1908

and also by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Lal v. Gulam Husain I. L. R. (1907) A. 579. I modify the decree of the Subordinate

Judge as regards this sum of Rs. 50 with interest and the costs incurred by the plaintiff in respect of his defence to Abu Bakar''s suit. I modify the

decree with costs here.

[But see the judgment of Krishnaswami Aiyar J., in C.R.P. 293 1910. - ED.]