Yerukola alias Penta Jogulu (Dead) and Others vs Yerukola alias Penta Tatayya alias Purushottam and Others

Walter Schwabe, C.J.—The question referred to the Full Bench is "What are the Articles of the limitation Act of 1908 applicable to certain money and profits received by two brothers or their representatives under the following circumstances?" Three brothers had been members of ail undivided joint Hindu family. In 1905 they separated and appointed arbitrators to divide the ancestral property. Before division was complete, disputes arose and the properties remaining undivided were left in the hands of different members of the family until in 1917 this suit was brought for partition and for account. It is found, and no doubt correctly, that the properties remaining undivided were held during the period, in question under a tenancy-in-common. Money was received from debtors in respect of debts which were owned in common, and rents and profits partly in money and partly in kind were received, in respect of lands also owned in common. When asked to account and pay for the shares of the other co-owners, the defendants set up the Limitation Act in answer, and there being a conflict of judicial views on the subject, it is for us to decide which Article in the Schedule of the Act applies.

The Articles relied" upon by those who claim to keep what they have received were Articles 62 and 109, whereas plaintiff relied on Article 127 or 120.

I agree that Articles 109 and 127 have no application on the grounds Stated in the order of reference.

Article 62 relates to suits for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff''s use. These are technical terms of the Law of England used to cover a great variety of cases in which it can be said that the defendant has received money which really belongs to the plaintiff. There is, however, one case in which that form of action would not lie in England and that is by one tenant-in-common against another who has received more than his share. In fact, in such a case, until the passing of the Statute IV Anne Chapter XVI, Section 27, no action would lie at all and by that Statute an action was permitted-but only for an account. In Thomas v. Thomas (1850) 5 Ex. 28 : 1 L.M. & P. 229 : 19 L.J. Ex. 175 : 14 Jur. 180 : 155 R.R. 13 : 82 R.R. 549, one of two tenants-in-common of some lands alleged that the other alone has received all the rents arising from those lands and he brought his action for money had and received. It was held by the Court of Exchequer (the judgment of the Court being delivered by that very eminent Judge Park, B.); that no such action lay, the reason being that the rents remained undivided and no one tenant-in-common was entitled to any specific-part, and further the collecting tenant-in-common would be entitled to all just allowances which could not be given in that form of action but could be given in an action for an account which under the Statute was permitted. It is worth observing that in Mahomed Wahib v. Mahomed Ameer 32 C. 527 : 1 C.L.J. 167, in which it was held that Article 62 applied to a case somewhat similar but in my view distinguishable from this, Harrington, J. states that the ground of decision in Thomas v. Thomas (1850) 5 Ex. 28 : 1 L.M. & P. 229 : 19 L.J. Ex. 175 : 14 Jur. 180 : 155 R.R. 13 : 82 R.R. 549, was that the plaintiff was bound to pursue his remedy for an account under IV Anne, which in my view is not correct, while Mookerjee, J. states the ground of the decision correctly but gives no effect to it. This, in my judgment, is in itself a sufficient ground for holding that Article 62 has no application to this case, it being quite impossible to say that any particular debt or rent or profit or any part of either was received for the use of any particular tenant-in-common. Indeed on partition any of the debts or rents or profits might: be awarded in toto to any of the tenants-in-common and further in this case each of the tenant-in common was collecting part of the-common properties or the income from it and no doubt incurring expense in so doing. An action for an account would be appropriate, an action for money had and received would, in my judgment, be quite inappropriate. This view was taken in Subba Row v. Rama Row 32 Ind. Cas. 899 : 40 M. 291 : 3 L.W. 192 : 19 M.L.T. 134 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 188 : 30 M.L.J. 34, in which it was held that Article 120 and not Article 62 applied in similar circumstances.

There are a large number of cases in the High Courts of India which decided in favour of Article 62 as against Article 120. Some are distinguishable. With those that are not, do not agree. Of the Madras cases the earliest is Arunachala Pillai v. Ramasamya Pillai 6 M. 402 : 2 Ind. Dec. 560 and this case has been treated in later cases as an authority for holding, that Article 62 applied to mongers collected by one of several tenants-in-common. It did not so decide, for, in that case a debt had been collected by one of two brothers, each of whom was entitled to a third of the debt: but this was after partition and the debt had on partition been divided. The collecting brother had no authority or right to collect his ''brother''s one third share and it was a specific-sum Which the brother was alone entitled to and for Which an action for money had and received would properly lie. Tellis v. Saldanha 10 M. 69 : 3 Ind. Dec. 79, Vaidydnatha Aiyar v. Aiyasami Aiyar 1 Ind. Cas. 408 : 32 M. 191 : 5 M.L.T. 49 : 19 M.L.J. 194, Ramalagu Servai v. Solai Servai 21 Ind. Cas. 394 : 14 M.L.T. 325 : (1913) M.W.N. 836 : 25 M.L.J. 531, Segu Chidambaramma v. Segu Balayya 12 Ind. Cas. 704 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 467, Avancha Lakshminarasamma v. Avancha Lakshamma 21 Ind. Cas. 394 : 14 M.L.T. 325 : (1913) M.W.N. 836 : 25 M.L.J. 531, Benode Lal v. Preo Nath 40 Ind. Cas. 173 purported to follow Arunachala Pillai v. Rmmazamya Pillai 6 M. 402 : 2 Ind. Dec. 560, but they really extended the doctrine to cases like the present. To the same effect are Banoo Tewary v. Doona Tewary 24 C. 309 : 12 Ind. Dec. 873, Mahomed Wahib v. Mahomed Ameer 32 C. 527 : 1 C.L.J. 167, Kundun Lal v. Bansidhar 3 A. 170 : 2 Ind. Dec. 89, Thakur Prasad v. Partab 6 A 442 : A.W.N. (1884) 154 : 4 Ind. Dec. 100, Masih-ud-din v. Imtiazunnisa Bibi 27 Ind. Cas. 533 : 37 A. 40 : 12 A.L.J. 1256 , Amina Bibi v. Najmunnissa Bibi 27 Ind. Cas. 712 : 13 A.L.J. 255, Abdul Gaffar v. Nur Jahan Begum 29 Ind. Cas. 347 : 37 A. 434 : 13 A.L.J. 686. On the other hand, the contrary has been held in Sarakhi Abdul Rahiman v. Mahaidin Pathummal Bivi 32 Ind. Cas. 83 : 30 M.L.J. 104 : 19 M.L.T. 88 following Marian Beeviammal v. Kadir Meera Sahib Taragan 29 Ind. Cas. 275, Subba Row v. Rama. Row 32 Ind. Cas. 899 : 40 M. 291 : 3 L.W. 192 : 19 M.L.T. 134 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 188 : 30 M.L.J. 34, Umardraz Ali Khan v. Wilayat Ali Khan 19 A. 169 : A.W.N. (1897) 34 : 9 Ind. Dec. 111 Parsotam Rao Tantia v. Radha Bai 28 Ind. Cas. 953 : 13 A.L.J. 407 : 37 A. 318, Venkata Reddi v. Kuppu Reddi 61 Ind. Cas. 762 : 13 L.W. 260, Gabu v. Zipru 22 Bom. L.R. 1289. All these cases decided against Article 62 and, excepting the last, in favour of Article 120. In Subba Row v. Rama Row 3 L.W. 192 : 19 M.L.T. 134 : 30 M.L.J. 34 and Venkata Reddi v. Kuppu Reddi 61 Ind. Cas. 762 : 13 L.W. 260, it was held that Article 62 does not apply to transactions in which the defendant is not under a mere duty to hand over the moneys which he has received; but has other duties as well in respect of it. Without going through all these cases in detail, for the reasons stated above, T prefer the latter series of cases in which-its was held that Article 62 did not apply to the former in which it was held that it did.

Holding as I do that Article 62 has no applicat on, it follows that Article 120 which applies to suits for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule would apply unless there is some other Article applicable. In my judgment, Article 89 has to be taken into account. This Article applies to suits by a principal against his agent for moveable property received by the latter and not accounted for, and the period of limitation is three years from the time when the account is, during the continuance of the agency, demanded and refused: or, where no such demand is made, when; the agency terminates. The reference to us is wide enough to cover this question. But it has not been considered in the Court below or by the Referring Bench and I doubt whether we have really sufficient material before us upon which to decide whether it applies or not. I think, however, that it is desirable to say: something about it and leave it to the Referring Bench to decide whether, on the facts which are before it, it applies in this case or not. If the facts be that these moneys and rents and profits were received with the consent of all concerned by the various persons in possession pending final settlement by division, I think that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, each of such persons should be considered as receiving as agent for himself and his co-owners; he would have authority, express or implied, to receive and would be acting upon that authority on behalf of the co-owners and not on his own behalf adversely to them. We were referred to two letters, Exhibits III and M (pages 66 and 68 of the documents'' paper), and to passages in the judgment of the District Judge which seems to indicate that all the moneys, rents and profits were collected in fact on behalf of the co-owners, and it would, in my view, be very difficult indeed for a person collecting undivided parts of an estate in this manner to say that he. was acting otherwise than for the benefit of himself and other co-owners. In Banoo Tewary v. Doona Tewary 24 C. 309 : 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 873, on facts similar to these it was held that the defendant was acting on behalf of other co-sharers as their agent in the realisation of their shares, and in a recent case in Gabu v. Zipru 45 B. 313 : 22 Bom. L.R. 1289, where an elder brother after partition by agreement with his brothers realised parts of the estate, it was held that he acted as c agent and that Article 89 applied. With this judgment I fully agree. That case a differs from this only in that there was in that case an express agreement that the elder brother should realise and divide lies among the three brothers while in this case there is no such agreement. But such an the agreement can be implied as well as express, the and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, in my judgment where one brother collects the assets of an estate of which he and the other brothers are co-owners, the natural inference is that he is acting as agent for himself and the other co-sharers and not on his own account.

I therefore, answer the question submitted by holding that Articles 62, 109 and 127. have no application and that Article 120 applies only if, applying the principles above enunciated, it is held on the facts that Article 89 to does not apply.

The question, raised in the order of reference is in these words: "If Article 120 be held applicable, the question will still arise as to whether the right to sue is to be deemed to accrue on the receipt of the profits or when an account is called for and refused" I am rather doubtful whether that question is referred to the Full Bench for decision, though I am inclined to construe the order of reference as intending so to do. How ever that may be, I think that, as the matter is before us, it is desirable that we should express our views upon it. The question turns, on words of Article 120. "Suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this schedule, time from which t period begins to run is when the right to sue accrues". In my judgment, and I have the support of the authority already referred to, Marian Beeviammal v. Kadir Meerat Sahib Taragan 29 Ind. Cas. 275, the right to sue arises in this kind of case when there a is a demand and refusal for an account, or it could be put as when there is, in fact, an ouster. It really follows from what I have already said that there is no cause of action on the mere receipt by one of the brothers of any particular amount, and it is, clear to my mind that the period of limitation cannot arise until cause of action arises. That cause of action does not come into being until, at any rate, there is something done which shows. That the man who got the money into his possession is holding it adversely to the plaintiff. If Article 89 is held to apply, the same result would follow when, during the continuance of the agency the account is demanded and refused, or when the agency terminates if no such demand is made.

Ayling, J.

I agree.

Coutts-Trotter, J.

I also agree.

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

This reference arises out of a suit for partition. The plaintiff, the deceased Dalayya (the father of defendants Nos. 1 to 3) and the 4th defendant were brothers. The 5th defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The 6th and 7th defendants are the sons of the 2nd defendant. The 8th defendant is the son of the 4th defendant who died pending suit leaving the 8th defendant his legal representative. The family was joint and undivided and owned moveable and Immovable properties but in 1905 disputes arose between the members and the plaintiff and his brothers divided some of the family out standings, moveables and houses. Being unable to effect an amicable partition of the remaining properties they submitted their disputes to arbitration. The arbitrators divided some of the moveable properties and prepared lists showing the division effected by them but did not proceed further. The result was that there was a partial partition and a large portion of the joint properties was not divided. Some of the properties remained in the posssesion of the plaintiff and some in the possession of the defendants while some lands were still enjoyed by all the parties in common. The case for the plaintiff is that he is entitled to a third share in the joint family properties, moveable and immovable, shown in the schedules to the plaint. The reliefs which the plaintiff asks for are: (1) a partition by metes and bounds of the Immovable properties specified in the plaint schedules, (2) an account of the moveables yet remaining undivided and the division of them into three equal shares and (3) payment of a specific sum of Rs. 6,150 which he alleges to be due under an arrangement. The account which he asks of the moveables includes, according to the plaintiff, the out standings due to the family and the amounts collected by the defendants who, according to the plaintiff, have to account for and pay him one-third of the collections. Various defences were raised but it is only necessary: to consider the plea of limitation as regards the amounts collected by the defendants. The District Judge in dealing with the question of limitation held that the plaintiff''s claim to money is governed by Article 62 and the claim to mesne profits by Article 109. As the period of limitation under these Articles is three years from the date when the money or profits were received, the plaintiff''s action in respect thereof would be barred if those Articles apply. The plaintiff appealed. His contention was that the case falls either under Article 127 or Article 120. In view of the conflict of authorities Wallis, C.J. and Oldfield, J. have referred to a Full Bench the question "What are the Articles applicable to the claims for money and mesne profits in the present suit?"

The facts contained in the pleadings, which I have set out above, show that this is a suit by a member of a Hindu family, some of the properties of which have been actually divided by metes and bounds and the rest of which are in the possession of the various members who have become divided in status, though the properties have not been divided by metes and bounds or apportioned among the various members in proportion to their respective shares. The plaintiff in prayer (b) in the plaint wants a decree "directing that an account be taken of moveables yet remaining undivided as per Schedules F, G and H and to direct that the same be divided into three equal shares and that plaintiff be awarded one share thereof from the defendants", and in prayer (d) wants a decree "directing defendants to pay costs of this suit with subsequent profits'' in respect of lands in possession of defendants till date of deliver and interest on the value of moveables from date of plaint to date of realization." I am of opinion that the proper Article to be applied to'' a claim like the present is Article 120.

I shall first deal with Article 109 which provides for a suit to recover the profits of Immovable property belonging to the plaintiff which have been wrongfully received by the defendant and fixes three years as the period of limitation, the starting point being the date on which the profits are received. It seems to me to be clear that the receipt of profits by one of several tenants-in-common cannot be said to be wrongful. The receipt of rents or profits from, tenants or persons in occupation of lands held in common is one of the ordinary modes of enjoyment of property and it cannot be said that a tenant-in-common is not entitled to receive the rents due. In Watson & Co. v. Ramchund Dutt 18 C. 10 : 5 Sar. P.C.J. 535 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 7 one co-sharer was in actual occupation of a portion of joint property and was cultivating it as if it was his separate property. Another co-sharer wanted to enter upon the same land and cultivate it for himself. Their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the co-sharer who was cultivating the land was entitled to protect himself by the profitable use of the land in good husbandry and that the other co-sharer was only entitled to receive his shares of the profits. The matter came up again before the High Court as regards the period of limitation which governs such cases, and in Robert Watson & Co. v. Ram Chanel Dutt (N.S.)12 Ind. Dec. 531, it was held that the proper Article to be applied was Article 120. It seems to me that if the cultivation of land by one co-sharer in the ordinary course to the exclusion of the other co-sharers is not wrongful the receipt by him of the rents and profits from persons who are bound to pay the same cannot become wrongful so as to attract the provisions of Article 109.

It was argued for the appellant that Article 127 would apply to cases like the present. Article 127 provides a period of 12 years for a suit by a person excluded from joint family property to enforce a right to share therein, the period starting from the date, when the exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff. It is clear from the pleading in the present case that at the date of the suit the members of the family were not members of a joint Hindu family in the ordinary sense of the term. The effect of the partial partition of certain properties and the reference to arbitration as regards the properties undivided as well as the conduct of the parties subsequently show clearly that they had become divided 211 status. At the date of the suit the plaintiff was not a member of a joint family. It is argued for the appellant that Article 127 should be read as if the words "joint family property" meant property which at one time was joint family property and outfit not to be confined to cases where the property is joint family property at the date of the suit but to property in which the plaintiff has a share and which is not divided by metes land bounds. No authority has been cited in support of such a construction of the plain terms of the Article. I agree with the learned referring Judges that Article 127 is inapplicable to cases where at the date of the suit the property has ceased to be joint family property and is held by the sharers as tenants-in-common. This view is in accordance with the decisions in Amme Raham v. Zia Ahmad 7 Ind. Dec. 177 , Sultan Begam v. Debi Prasad 30 A. 324 : A.W.N. (1908) 126 : 5 A.L.J. 352 , where it was held by a Full Bench that the word "joint" in Article 127 has a settled and well-defined meaning and could not be used as descriptive of property held in common; Banoo Ternary v. Doona Ternary 24 C. 309 : 12 Ind. Dec. 873, where the learned Judges held that Article 127 presupposes the existence of some joint family and proceeding upon the hypothesis that there is a joint family it provides for the remedy of a member who is excluded and has no application to cases where there was disruption of the status of jointness and Bhavrao v. Rakhmin 23 B. 137 : 12 Ind. Dec. 91. The only other Article that could have any application are Articles 62 and 120. Before dealing with the applicability of these Articles. I think it is necessary to consider the position in Hindu Law of persons situated like the present plaintiff. Till the decision of the Privy Council in Suraj Narain v. Iqbal Narain 18 Ind. Cas. 30 : 17 C.W.N. 333 : 11 A.L.J. 172 : (1913) M.W.N. 183 : 17 C.L.J. 288 : 34 M.L.J. 345 : 15 Bom. L.R. 456 : 16 O.C. 129 : 40 I.A. 40 (P.C.), the current of the authority was that in order to effect a separation of status there must be an agreement, express or; implied, between all the co-parceners. Sudarsanam Maistri v. Narasimhulu Maistri 10 Ind. Cas. 283 : 11 M.L.J. 353, deals with this question at great length. It has, however, now been settled by the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Suraj Narain v. Iqbal Narain (1913) M.W.N. 183 : 17 C.L.J. 288 : 34 M.L.J. 345 : 40 I.A. 40 (P.C.) and Girja Bat v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj 37 Ind. Cas. 321 : 43 C. 1031 : 20 C.W.N. 1085 : 14 A.L.J. 822 : 20 M.L.T. 78 : 12 N.L.R. 113 : 4 L.W. 114 : 24 C.L.J. 207 : 31 M.L.J. 455 : 43 I.A. 151 (P.C.), that a separation of status is created by a clear and unambiguous expression of the determination of one member to become divided. On such a declaration the rights and liabilities of the parties are no longer those of a joint Hindu family but have to be determined on the footing that they are not joint tenants but tenants-in-common. This, however, does not by itself change the nature of the suit to be brought for the working out of the rights of such members. The rule of Hindu Law that a member of a joint family cannot, except in certain specific circumstances, sue for a partial partition is applicable to cases where the joint family has been disrupted by severance of status between the various members. It is clear that, if a member of a Hindu family seeks to recover his share of any particular item of property, he will be met with the plea that the suit is bad and that he ought to file a suit for a partition of all the available properties in order that all the equities may be adjusted between the various parties. Each member will have to bring into the hotch-pot the properties in his possession and an account will have to be taken at least from the date when the joint family became divided in status of the rents and profits of the joint family properties received by any member and which are liable to be brought into the hotch-pot. Until the properties are actually divided, it cannot be predicated that any particular item of property would fall to any particular member of the joint family nor can it be said that any particular member of the joint family has a right to insist that each item of property shall be broken up into as many shares as there are sharers and that he should get a particular share of each item. As far as possible, in suits for partition the entire items of family property will be allotted to the members if it can be done without any prejudice to the rights of the others. It may thus well be that where a co-sharer has received the whole or portion of the monies due on a debt due to the family that particular item might be allotted to the member who has so received or in taking accounts it may well be that one co-parcener who lays claim to a particular item has overdrawn ''his share and is not entitled to any portion of the family property. Under these circumstances if a co-parcener should file a suit far a specific share in an outstanding recovered he will be met with the reply the not only is the suit for that share not maintainable but that the liability of the parties should be adjusted with reference to the taking of the general accounts. It is difficult to see how in such cases Article 62 can be applied. As pointed out in Augustinus v. Nerinckx (1881) 16 Ch. D. 13 : 43 L.T. 458 : 29 W.R. 225, where no specific sum is claimed but an account is asked for, the action is not a mere Common Law action to recover monies had and received and a plaintiff may in a proper case claim an account of the monies due to him. If a separate suit for partition cannot, except in certain specified cases, be brought for each item recovered, I think the only equitable course is to treat the cause of action in respect of a partition of family property as single and indivisible and to apply the same period of limitation as regards moveable property including outstandings collected. A distinction ought to be drawn between cases where the suit is one for a partition of joint family properties, one of the items for partition being the collections made by one or the other of the members of rent or outstandings due to the family, and cases where no account is necessary owing to the only item for division being property held in common. For example, if nothing more appears than that a debt is due to two or more persons jointly and one has collected it, the only question is whether the collection was made, and the shares being ascertained there is no necessity to take an account.

On the other hand, in cases where a partition has to be effected of properties that were once held as joint tenants and subsequently as tenants-in-common, the accountability of each member being an essential element in the consideration of the division of shares, it would lead to injustice if in taking accounts each member is allowed to keep whatever be collected three years prior to the suit. In Subba Row v. Rama Row 32 Ind. Cas. 899 : 40 M. 291 : 3 L.W. 192 : 19 M.L.T. 134 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 188 : it is pointed out that Article 62 of the Limitation Act can only apply to cases where a definite sum of money has been received by the defendant and which the law says he must hold for the use of the plaintiff and that it is not applicable to cases Where the defendant is asked to account for monies and where the person collecting is entitled to just allowances. The learned Judges refer to various cases and point out that in cases where Article 62 was applied there was no question of rendering an account In Muhammad Habibullah Khan v. Safdar Husain Khan 7 A. 25 : A.W.N. (1884) 219 : 4 Ind. Dec.254, the learned Judges, on the authority of Gurudas v. Ram Narain Sahu 10 C. 860 : 11 I.A. 59 : 8 Ind. Jur. 322 : 4 Sar. P.C.J. 548 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 575, applied Article 120 and held that Article 62 of the Limitation Act does not apply to cases of an equitable claim against a trustee liable to account, in which the relief sought is to have an account taken of the trust properties and to recover what might be due, as the form in which the suit is brought is not that of an action for money had'' and received for the plaintiff''s use, this form of suit not affording a sufficient relief. In Khadersa Hajee Bappu v. Puthen Veettil Ayissa Ummah 6 Ind. Cas. 50 : 34 M. 511 : 20 M.L.J. 288 : 8 M.L.T. 4 : (1910) M.W.N. 447, it was held by a Full Bench that a suit for partition of property left by a Mohammadan intestate was governed by Article 120 as regards moveables and Article 144 as regards immovables. In Robert Watson & Co. v. Ram Chand Dutt 23 C. 799 : 12 Ind. Dec. 531, it was held that a suit by one, of several joint tenants to recover compensation for the use and occupation by some of the joint tenants of part of the joint lands to the exclusion of the other joint tenants is governed by Article 120. Sarakhi Abdul Rahiman v. Mahaidin Pathuammal Bivi 32 Ind. Cas. 83 : 30 M.L.J. 104 : 19 M.L.T. 88, it was held that in a suit for partition by a Mohammadan lady against her co-heirs a claim for the amount of a mortgage-debt due to the deceased intestate collected by the defendants was governed by Article 120 and not Article 62. In Marian Beeviammal v. Kadir Meefa Sahib Taragan 29 Ind. Cas. 275, a suit was filed by a Mohammadan lady for a share of her husband''s property 23 years after her husband''s death. She wanted to recover one-eighth share of the sum of Rs. 28,000 which was cash left by her husband. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge as being barred. On appeal it was held that the proper Article to apply was Article 120. The learned Judges observe: "The defendants having taken possession o the property as tenants-in-common, they must be deemed to have been in possession of such property on behalf of themselves and of the plaintiff and it lies on them to show that so far as the plaintiff is concerned, the character of their possession was changed six years before the date of their suit. The judgment of the Judicial Committee in; Corea v. Appuhamy (1912) A.C. 230 : 81 L.J.P.C. 151 : 105 L.T. 836 would show that mere intention on their part is not enough to change the character of that possession". In Ganesh Dutt Thakoor v. Jeivach Thakoorain 31 C. 262 : 14 M.L.J. 8 : 31 I.A. 10 : 8 C.W.N. 146 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 575 : 6 Bom. L.R. 1 (P.C.), the suit was one for a partition of moveable and Immovable properties. Ah issue was raised as to whether the suit was barred by limitation as regards the moveable properties and the Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit as regards moveables on the ground that it was filed after the lapse of three years from the date when, according to the plaintiff, the cause, of action arose. The High Court held that no portion of the plaintiff''s, claim was barred and. this view was upheld by the Privy Council. Though their lordships of the Privy Council did not discuss the particular Article under which a suit for partition would lie, it is clear that they dissented from the view that the three years'' rule was applicable to cases of partition where the claim is inter alia for the recovery of the plaintiff''s share in the bond debts and decrees realised by the defendant. In Umardaraz Ali Khan v. Wilayat Ali Khan 19 A. 169 : A.W.N. (1897) 34 : 9 Ind. Dec. 111, it was held that a suit brought by some of the heirs to recover from the widow of a deceased Mohammadan a sum of money realised by her on account of a mortgage-debt due to the deceased was governed by Article 120 of the Second Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. In Venkata Reddi v. Kuppu Reddi 61 Ind. Cas. 762 : 13 L.W. 260, Article 120 was applied to a suit for partition as regards the income derived from the joint properties. Wallis, C.J. observed: "The next question is with regard to the period of limitation within which the plaintiff is entitled to recover the income from the defendants, in respect of the portions of the properties which ought to have fallen to his share but which were enjoyed by them. It has been contended that the case is governed by Article 62 which applies to suits, i.e., for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff''s use. The scope of this Article in cases like the present has been considered in Subba Row v. Rama Row 32 Ind. Cas. 899 : 40 M. 291 : 3 L.W. 192 : 19 M.L.T. 134 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 188 : 30 M.L.J. 34, where it has been pointed out that it does not apply to transactions in which the defendant is not under a mere duty to hand over the money which he had received but has other duties as well in respect of it." In Parsotam Rao Tantia v. Radha Bai 28 Ind. Cas. 953 : 13 A.L.J. 407 : 37 A. 318, where property was owned by three brothers as tenants-in-common and the rents were received by one of them as he was the karta of the family it was held that a suit by a widow of one of the members to recover from, the manager her husband''s share of money received by him as manager but owned by all the members of the family in equal shares was not a suit for money had and received but was one to which Article 120 of the limitation Act applied. Richards, C.J., and Banerjee, J., observed: "Reading, however, the plaint as a whole, and having regard to the nature of the evidence and the defence, we think that the suit was in reality a suit for partition of the moveable and Immovable property which had been held by the three brothers and in which the plaintiff''s husband had a third share" and held that Article 120 was applicable to a suit of that kind.

Many of the cases cited by Mr. Narayanamurthi for the respondents are cases where the claim was not for a partition between the members of a joint family which had become separate in status and in which an account was necessary to be taken to establish the liability of the various members to each other. Mahomed Wahib v. Mohamed Ameer 32 C. 527 : 1 C.L.J. 167, was a suit to recover the share of the plaintiff in respect of his zurpeshgi leases, the income of which the defendant had recovered from the lessees. Ramalagu Servai v. Solai Servai 141 M.L.J. 274 : (1931) M.W.N. 539, was not a suit for partition but a suit to recover a debt which one member of a Hindu family which had become divided had collected and had not paid over to the other. Sankunni Menon v. Govinda Menon 14 Ind. Cas. 254 : 37 M. 381 : 11 M.L.T. 325 : (1912) M.W.N. 516 : 42 M.L.J. 483, was a case where the Karnavan of a Malabar Tarwad sued a junior for the recovery of a sum or Tarwad money received by the latter arid not paid qver to the Karnavan. As no partition is possible in the case of Mala bar Tarwads and as the junior member had no right to receive the monies when the Karnavan was in management, the case was a simple one of money received by one member who did not pay it to the rightful person. Syud Lootf Ali Khan v. Afzuloonissa Begum 9 B.L.R. 348 : 16 W.R. 20 (P.C), also related to the recovery of the plaintiff''s io-24th share of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000, paid by a debtor in respect of a debt due to the joint family and the only question was whether the claim was barred by limitation and there was no question of accountability or partition of joint family property. Webor Ali v. Gaddai Behari 2 C.L.R. 165, was a case where one of two decree-holders, without the knowledge of the other decree-holder, transferred the decree to another person who executed the decree and recovered the money, and it was held that, if there was any cause of action against the transferee, it would be for money had and t received and the suit would be governed by Article 60 of the limitation Act of 1871 which corresponds to Article 62 of the present Act. Binode Lal v. Preo Nath 40 Ind. Cas. 173, was a case where one of several co-sharers landlords filed a suit for arrears of rent and made, the other co-sharers party defendants along with the tenants and prayed that, if the co-sharers had received the rents, the plaintiff should be paid his portion. It was found that the rent was paid by the tenants to the landlord defendants and the question was whether the suit was barred. It was held that Article 62 applied to such a case, even though the defendants when they received the money did not intend to pay it to the plaintiff. Thakur Prasad v. Pratab 6 A 442 : A.W.N. (1884) 154 : 4 Ind. Dec. 100, was a suit by one of two divided members of a joint Hindu family for the recovery of a specific amount, being his share of a decree debt due to the family which the defendant had realised. Dalip Singh v. Tulshi Ram A.W.N. (1887) 91, was a case where certain property was purchased by a person in his own name but for the benefit of himself and another. The purchaser refused to account for the profile and a suit was filed against him. It was held that the transaction in that, case created the defendant a trustee for the plaintiff and that the money received by the defendant which he was bound to pay over "to his cestuis que trustent was money received for the use of the cestuis que trustent and fell under Article 62 and not Article log of the Limitation Act. It is unnecessary to consider how far this decision is right, having regard to the finding that the defendant was a trustee for the plaintiff and to the applicability of Section 10. of the Limitation Act to such cases. Abdul Gaffar v. Nur Jahan Begum 29 Ind. Cas. 347 : 37 A. 434 : 13 A.L.J. 686, was a case where a Mohammadan obtained a success on certificate to realise the debts of his deceased uncle and recovered some of them. A suit was filed by the widow of his co-heir for an account of the sums he collected on the authority of the succession certificate and for the recovery of her husband''s shares and it was held that Article 62 was applicable to that case. With all respects, I do not agree with the learned Judges in their attempt to distinguish this case from the decisions in Umardaraz Ali Khan v. Wilayat All Khan 61 Ind. Cas. 762 : 13 L.W. 260 and Mahomed Riasat Ali v. Hasin Banu 21 C. 157 : 20 I.A. 155 : 17 Ind. Jur. 484 : 6 Sar P.C.J. 374 : Rafique and Jackson''s P.C. No. 133 : 1 Ind. Dec.737 ; and if it is authority for holding that in suits for partition, and account Article 62 is applicable, I would respectfully dissent from it. I find it difficult to see how a case where one of the heirs takes charge of the cash left by the deceased and does not pay over the share of the others can be distinguished from a case where the heir receives money from a debtor, and in Mahomed Riasat Ali v. Hasin Banu 17 Ind. Jur. 484 : 6 Sar P.C.J. 374 : Rafique and Jackson''s P.C. No. 133 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 737 , their Lordships of the Privy Council held that as regards monies taken possession of by one heir the suit was not barred at the, expiry of three years. Treating it as a suit for partition, the decision in the same volume at page 318 Parsotam Rao Tantia v. Radha Bat 28 Ind. Cas. 953 : 13 A.L.J. 407 : 37 A. 318, which I have already referred to, would apply. In Masih-ud-din v. Bibi Imtiazunnisa 27 Ind. Cas. 533 : 37 A. 40 : 12 A.L.J. 1256 , it was held that where, pending arbitration, in respect of the distribution of the estate of a deceased person amongst his heirs, the estate was by their consent put in charge of a third party who was to realise the assets and pay the debts, a suit by one of the heirs to recover from such person her share was a suit for money had and received and was governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act. This decision is in direct conflict with Subba Rao v. Rama Rao 32 Ind. Cas. 899 : 40 M. 291 : 3 L.W. 192 : :19 M.L.T. 134 (1916) 1 M.W.N. 188 : 30 M.L.J. 34. Lakhpat Pandey v. Jang Bahadur Pandey 40 Ind. Cas. 37. was a suit to.recover the.share of a person who was entitled to it out of the monies collected; in respect of certain bonds which stood in the name of the defendants or some of them and in which he was a co-sharer. It was held that Article 62 was applicable. This was not a case where there was any claim for partition or any account was asked for. Dulabh Vahuji v. Bansidhar Rai 5 Ind. Dec. 74. was a, case where a person who was entitled to a share in a deshpande vatan sued to recover monies collected by his co-sharer and it was held that Article 62 of the Limitation Act applied.

The only case which so far as I can see really touches the question is Vaidyanatha Aiyar v. Aiyasamy Aiyar 5 M.L.T. 49 : 19 M.L.J. 194, where there was a partial partition between the members of a Hindu family. The greater portion of the properties had been divided and the parties subsequently continued to live separately. It was held that in such, a case where the members of the joint family had become divided in status no member had a right on behalf of the others to recover any debt due to the family and where it was so recovered it was not joint family-property so as to attract the provisions, of Article 127 of the Limitation Act, the Article applicable in such cases being Article 62. It was also: held that the principle that the possession of one tenant-in-common is, to be deemed possession of all and limitation begins to run only after the exclusion, of any tenant-in-common or adverse possession is set up, would not apply in the case of joint families after a complete separation, in status, The latter proposition can hardly be good law having regard to the decision, in Kumarappa Chettiar v. Saminatha Chettiar 52 Ind. Cas. 470 : 42 M. 431 : 36 M.L.J. 612 : (1919) M.W.N. 328. It is difficult to see how a mere separation in status could by itself make possession by one member hostile to the other or by itself amount to ouster. As regards the applicability of Article 62, the learned Judges do not discuss the cases there referred, to where Article 120 "has been applied to, claimed for partition. Of the cases referred: to by the learned Judges, Arunachala Pillai v. Ramasamya Pillai 6 M. 402 , was not a suit for partition? but a suit to recover a specific share of a joint debt collected by the father of the family. Tkakur Prasad v. Pratab A.W.N. (1884) 154 : 4 Ind. Dec. 100,which was referred to, was also asimilar case, and Banoo Tewary v. Doona Tewary 12 Ind. Dec. 873 has already been referred to by me. As regards Tellis v. Saldanha 10 M. 69 : 3 Ind. Dec. 79 the main question there considered was whether there was a survivorship as between two Native Christian brothers. It was held that as regards the claim for the share of the rents by one of the persons so entitled, Article 62 applied, and there is hardly any discussion on the subject. Kundun Lal v. Bansidhar 10 M. 69 : 3 Ind. Dec. 79, which was relied on, was also not a suit for general partition but only a suit by one of two heirs to recover his share of money which the other heir got from a person in respect of money due to the family.

Reference has been made to the English law that a tenant-in-common cannot maintain an action for money had and received against his co-tenant. Prior to the Statute 4 arid 5 Anne Chap. XVI which gave a right of action by a suit for an account by one joint tenant or a tenant-in-common against the other of the rents and profits received in. excess of his share there was no remedy at Common Law. In Thomas v. Thomas 19 L.J. Ex. 175 : 14 Jur. 180 : 155 R.R. 13 : 82 R.R. 549 it was held that one tenant-in-common of real property cannot maintain an action for money had and received against his co-tenant, his remedy being by an action of account under 4 Anne Chap. XVI, Section 27,. So far as I can see, this decision has not been dissented from and an action for money had and received would not lie in England. This rule has not been applied to cases between joint tenants in India. The only case where, so far as I can see, the English doctrine was considered is Mahomed Wahib v. Mahomed Ameer 32 C. 527 1 C.L.J. 167 where Harrington, J., in meeting the contention that one tenant-in-common cannot maintain an action for money had and received against his co-tenants was of opinion that the ground of decision in Thomas v. Thomas (1850) 5 Ex. 28 : 1 L.M. & P. 229 : 155 R.R. 13 : 82 R.R. 549 was that the plaintiff was bound to pursue his statutory remedy for account under 4 Anne Chap. XVI, Section 27. Mookerjee, J. simply stated that under English law one tenant-in-common cannot recover in an account for money had and received against another who has received more than his share of the profits and referred to the Statute 4 Anne Chap. XVI, Section 27 and Thomas v. Thomas (1850) 5 Ex. 28 : 1 L.M. & P. 229 : 19 L.J. Ex. 175 : 14 Jur. 180 : 155 R.R. 13 : 82 R.R. 549. He decided that Article. 62 of the limitation Act applied. His view evidently was that the rule was not applicable to India. The referring Judges were inclined to the view that this principle is equally applicable to cases arising in India. The decisions in India I have referred to assume that a tenant-in-common has a right of action for money had and received against his co-tenant and it is argued that as Courts in India are not bound by the technical rules and procedure in England but have to administer justice on broad principles of equity and good conscience in cases where there is no statutory enactment relating to a particular subject and as there is nothing against equity or good conscience in one co-sharer suing to recover monies received by another in excess of his share without the necessity of having to take the cumbrous procedure of filing a suit for an account, Courts in India ought not to apply the rule in Thomas v. Thomas (1850) 5 Ex. 28 : 1 L.M. & P. 229 : 19 L.J. Ex. 175 : 14 Jur. 180 : 155 R.R. 13 : 82 R.R. 549 that an action will not lie except for an account as between tenants-in-common. It is unnecessary to determine this wide question, as I am of opinion that in suits for partition between members of a joint and undivided Hindu family who have become subsequently divided in status, the plaintiff being entitled to ask for an account and the relative rights and obligations of the partes being dependent on the taking of the account when would include not only the properties moveable and immovables in the possession of each member but also the assets of the family including the outstandings and rents and profits collected, the action for partition and the reliefs claimed in it cannot be brought under Article 62 of the Limitation Act. Even in cares where Article 62 has been applied, it seems to me hat Courts have not given sufficient weight to Article 89 of the limitation Act. In cases of respect by one member of a joint family, though divided in status, of sums due to the family it may well be that the person making the collection is acting on behalf of the other members and it need not necessarily be assumed that because there was a division of status there is necessarily a dishonest intention on the part of the person who is collecting the outstanding-s to appropriate the money to himself. Very often the receipt of rents is by the person who, when the family, was joint and before separation in status, was the managing member of the family. In cases where the properties of the joint family stand in the name of different members the receipt is very often by the person in whose name the particular item stands. Sometimes when the members of the family live in different places the receipt is by the person who resides at the place where the debtor happens to be or which is most convenient for collection. In all these cases the mere fact that a member declares his intention of separation does not amount to notice to the debtors not to pay. Except in cases where one member of the joint family has given notice to the other member or members not to receive monies due to his co-sharers and has informed the debtors not to pay, I do not think the collection by one of the co-sharers necessarily imports an intention on his part to appropriate the monies collected to his own use and not distribute them among the sharers when demanded. The mere fact that the person receiving the money was not expressly authorised after the division in status to collect it would not affect his liability as agent. I may in this connection refer to the decision of the House of Lords in Lyell v. Kennedy (1889) 14 A.C. 437 : 59 L.J. Q.B. 268 : 62 L.T. 77 : 38 W.R. 353 where it was held that the collection of rents by a person on behalf of another, though unauthorised, may be ratified by the true owner and that such ratification may be expressed by a suit brought for an account within a reasonable time. Gabu v. Zipru 59 Ind. Cas. 357 : was a case where the learned Judges applied Article 89. They dissented, and in my view rightly, from the decision in Banoo Ternary v. Doona Ternary 24 C. 309 : 12 Ind. Dec. 873, where the learned Judges applied Article 62 inspite of their holding that the defendant was acting on behalf of his co-sharers as their agent in receiving their share of the monies. It seems to me that in cases where the suit is not one for partition after the taking of an account the question may still arise whether or not the defendant acted as the agent, express or implied, of the plaintiff in making the collections and, if so, it seems to rise that the proper Article to apply will be 89 and not 62.

My answer to the reference is that in a suit for partition where a claim is made for an account being taken of the moveable properties, outstandings and, collections made by the various members in respect of properties in which the parties were once joint but who subsequently became separate in status the proper Article to apply is Article 120. The period of limitation will run from the demand of the share by the plaintiff or refusal by defendant. The receipt by the co-tenant is not wrongful and, consequently, his possession cannot be wrongful till he refuses to deliver the share of the co-tenant he has received or set up a hostile title to the knowledge of the-co-sharer. The observations I have referred, to in Marian Beeviammal v. Kadir Meera Sahib Taragan 29 Ind. Cas. 275 support this view. I may also refer to Sarakhi Abdul Rahiman v. Mahdadin Pathummal Bivi 32 Ind. Cas. 83 : 30 M.L.J. 104 : 19 M.L.T. 88 where Marian Beeviammal v. Kadir Meera Sahib Taragan 29 Ind. Cas. 275 is approved of and followed.

Devadoss, J.

The question referred for the opinion of the Full Bench is "What are the Articles applicable to the claims for money and mesne profits in the present suit?". In order to understand the question fully it is necessary to set out a few facts. The plaintiff his brothers Dalayya and 4th defendant with sons and grandsons constituted a Hindu joint family till 1905. In that year, the plaintiff and his brothers became separate in interest and divided some of the family properties. Other properties remained undivided owing to disputes between the brothers till 1917, when the plaintiff brought the present suit for the division of the remaining properties. No question of limitation arises as regards the Immovable properties. As regards outstandings and mesne profits the defendants contend that the plaintiff''s claim for his share of outstandings realised by them is barred by limitation under Article 62 and as regards mesne profits his claim is barred under Article 109 of the Schedule 1 of the limitation Act of 1908. The plaintiff''s contention is that as regards his share of outstandings collected, Article 120 of the limitation Act applies and as regards mesne profits Article 127 applies. It is strongly contended before us by Mr. Narayanamurthi for the respondents that the proper Article to apply to the case of outstandings collected is Article 62 of the limitation Act.

Column 1 of Article 62 reads thus: ''for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff''s use.'' This Article is taken from the well-known form of action for money had and received. What averments are necessary to sustain the action can be seen from the following passage from Bullen on Leake''s Precedents of Pleadings, page 257 (6th Edition): "In actions for money received to the plaintiff''s use, the statement of claim should in all cases state clearly, by way of particulars or otherwise, the facts relied on as showing that the money was received to the use of the plaintiff."

I shall first examine the cases relied on by Mr. Narayanamurthi in support of his contention. In Arunachala Pillai v. Ramasamya Piliai 6 M. 402 : 2 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 560 it was held that Article 62 applied to the plaintiff''s claim to a specific debt due to the family said to have been collected by the father after a decree for partition.

In the decree for partition there was a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to a third share of the specific debt and the plaintiff did not choose to give the debtor notice that he was entitled to a third share of the debt. It was contended that Section 10 of the Limitation Act applied to the facts of the case and that the father was a trustee for the sons. The Court held that the father was not a trustee and that the plaintiff''s claim was barred under Article 62 of the Limitation Act. That decision can have no application to the present case, as the facts therein are different from facts herein. In the present case there was no decision by arbitrators or a decree of Court that plaintiff was entitled to a third of any specific item. When Dalayya collected the outstandings due to the family he collected what was due to the whole family and not any amount specifically due to the plaintiff either as a whole or in part. In the next case Tellis v. Saldanha 10 M. 69 the Court held ca-parcenership and the right of the survivorship, which are incidents peculiar to Hindu Law. have no application to the members of a Christian family, and if one member of such family collects rent to which two or more members of such family are entitled, the claim for a portion of the rent is barred after 3 years under Article, 62 of the Limitation Act. In this case there is no question of agency and the mere fact that two persons are members of a family would not make one the agent of the others In the case of a joint Hindu family there is a managing member who contracts in his own name for the family and transacts all the affairs of the family and the other members cannot question his acts except by a suit for partition. In the present state of the law a mere unequivocal unilateral declaration of intention would bring about a division of status and that by itself would not take away the power of the managing, member to manage the affairs of the family in the interests of all its members till there is an actual division of the property. Tellis v. Saldanha 10 M. 69 : 3 Ind. Dec. 79 is not an authority for the contention that Article 62 should be held to be applicable to the facts of the present case. The decision in Vaidyamatha Aiyar v. Aiyasami Aiyar 5 M.L.T. 49 : 19 M.L.J. 194 is a direct authority for the respondent''s contention. The learned Judges observe at page 198: "After the division in status of the members of a family one of them does not represent the others. He is not bound by the dealings of the others with reference to any property in which a person may be interested. Thus after 1892 no member of the family can recover the debt or any portion of the debt that may be payable to the other members. Their right against any debtor would stand unaffected by any payment to him and if'' any member as a joint creditor recovers the debt he becomes liable immediately; to pay over the share of his joint creditor to him. This also explains the case of Ganesh Dutt Thakoor v. Jewach Thakqorain 31 I.A. 10 : 6 Bom. L.R. 1 . There, as expressly stated by their Lordships, it was not the case of either party that there was a partial separation or a separation in respect of certain properties only, and the debts, therefore, realised, by the brothers were realised on account of their family; the only question was whether one of the brothers, as whose representative his widow claimed a partition was separated in interest or continued an unseparated member. There was no claim advanced by any one of the members, to the debts realised, to the exclusion of the other members of the family. In the case before us, as already pointed out; the debts were not recovered or realised by the first defendant or any of the other brothers as the representative of the family or on behalf of the other members as well. We are, therefore, of opinion that Article 62 applies".

It is difficult to see how Article 62 would apply to such a case. The Article refers only to cases where money was received by defendant for the plaintiff''s use. After division in status till outstandings are collected and divided or allocated to the various members of the family each may collect what he could and an account will have to be taken at the time of actual division. In no sense can one member of a family, divided in status, but holding property to be allocated or divided, be said to collect or manage on behalf of any other, unless there is an agreement, implied or express, to that effect or at least conduct indicating an intention to act as agent. Where one or some of the outstandings belonging to a once joint family is collec