Ranga Reddi and Another vs Chinna Reddi and Others

We are of opinion that the proper article of the schedule to the Limitation Act to apply to this suit was Article 116. The suit is founded on a

settlement of accounts made between plaintiffs and their partner, the plaintiffs seeking to recover the defendants'' share of the loss, which was the

result of the partnership business. The contract of partnership contains an express stipulation that the parties should, according to their shares, pay

the loss, and thus the origin of the obligation now in suit was a registered contract. The account stated had reference to the registered contract and

did not constitute in itself an independent contract. It was argued that Article 64,* the article relating to suits on accounts stated, should be applied.

That would be so, if the partnership contract had not been registered, but that circumstance renders Article 116 applicable, as in the case of the

suit against an agent it was held that the general Articles 88$ and 89 would not govern the suit, because the agreement with the agent was

registered Harender Kishore Singh v. The Administrator-General of Bengal ILR 12 Cal. 357. It was also held in Vythilinga Pillai v. Thetchanamurti

Pillai ILR 3 Mad. 76 that in a suit for rent founded on a registered agreement the same Article 116 and not Article 64 should be applied. The

intention was to extend the period in favour of suit to enforce obligations based on registered instruments.

We must reverse the decree and remand the suit. Costs are to abide and follow the result and to be provided for in the revised decree.

*

__________________________________________________________________________________________

[Article 64:

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Description of Suit. | Period of | Time from which period

| limitation | begins to run.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

For money payable to the plaintiff| Three years ... | When the accounts are stated in

for money found to be due from | | writing signed by the defendant or

the defendant to the plaintiff on | | his agent duly authorized in this

accounts stated between them. | | behalf, unless where the debt is, by a

| | simultaneous agreement in writing

| | signed as aforesaid, made payable at

| | a future time and them when that

| | time arrives.]

__________________________________________________________________________________________

$

__________________________________________________________________________________________

[Article 88:

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Against a factor for an account. | Three years ... | When the account is, during the

| | continuance of the agency, demanded

| | and refused, or where no such demand

| | is made, when the agency terminates.]

__________________________________________________________________________________________