VITHALDAS BHAVADAS Vs. YELLOSA LAXMANSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant before me was the plaintiff in the suit. The suit instituted by him was for the recovery of Rs. 1755-9-6 and costs paid by him for the defendant. In the plaint filed by the plaintiff it is stated that the plaintiff had to file this suit against the defendant to recover the said sum which the plaintiff had to pay on behalf of the defendant. This is the cause of action of which the plaintiff's case in the suit is founded. The facts leading up to the filing of this suit may be shortly stated as follows :

(2.) On 16-2-50 a firm known as Ramnathsa Dharmsa Shidling filed a civil suit being C. S. No. 80/1950 against the present plaintiff and the defendant alleging that the defendant as plaintiff's clerk had borrowed Rs. 1,000/- on 2-7-1949 for an on behalf of the plaintiff. In that suit the present plaintiff was Defendant No. 1 and the present defendant was defendant No. 2. The case of the present plaintiff in that case was that the defendant had no authority to receive the money on his behalf and the said money was not actually paid to the plaintiff. The case of the present defendant in the said suit was that he had borrowed the money for and on behalf of the plaintiff, paid it to the plaintiff and the plaintiff returned the money to him and he thereafter returned the money to Ramnathsa Dharmsa Shidling. The Court held that the money was borrowed by the present defendant for and on behalf of the present plaintiff and the defendant was authorised to borrow such money. The Court further held that the money was returned back by the present defendant to Ramnathsa Dharmsa Shidling. On this view, the trial Court passed a decree against the present plaintiff and dismissed the suit against the present defendant. The appeal filed by the plaintiff against the said decision was also dismissed. On 19-3-51 the plaintiff had to pay the decretal amount with costs amounting to Rs. 1,755-9-6. Thereafter on 14-8-1952 this suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant and, as I have mentioned, the cause of action on which it is founded, as is stated in the plaint, was that the suit was against the defendant to recover the said sum which the plaintiff had to pay on behalf of the defendant.

(3.) The Courts below held that the defendant was an agent of the plaintiff, but the money which was borrowed for the plaintiff was not paid to him. Both the Courts, however, dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. The Article which was held to be applicable to the present case by the said Courts was Art. 90 which is as follows : Article No. Description of suit. Period of limitation. Time from which Period begins to run