(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for money. The plaintiffs are the widow and children of one Krishnan Madhavan who was karnavan of the tarwad of the defendants. The properties under Ext. A had been acquired on mortgage by this tarwad and while the tarwad was thus in possession of the properties, Krishnan Madhavan took the sale deed Ext. A in respect of the equity of redemption of the property. This sale deed was taken in the name of his mother. He died on 7-11-1116. The plaintiffs' case is that a sum of Rs. 800/- advanced under Ext. A was paid out of the separate acquisition of Krishnan Madhavan. This is one item of the plaint claim. The other item is a sum of Rs. 500/- said to have been spent by Krishnan Madhavan in renovating and reconstructing a portion of the tarwad building. Both these amounts are claimed by the plaintiffs from the tarwad of Krishnan Madhavan. The lower court has negatived the claim in its entirety.
(2.) The finding regarding the sum of Rs. 500/- said to have been spent by Krishnan Madhavan for improving the tarwad property, is concurrent and is against the plaintiffs. That finding is to the effect that he spent the amount in his capacity as the karnavan of the tarwad and for the benefit of the tarwad and that he never intended that the tarwad should pay back the amount to him. It is obvious that the karnavan effecting repairs or reconstructions of tarwad buildings is only discharging his duty as a karnavan. The lower court was therefore right in holding that the karnavan cannot be deemed to have advanced the required amount as a loan to the tarwad. The decree disallowing the claim under this item has only to be confirmed.
(3.) Then there is the claim of Rs. 800/- under the other item. The finding is that this amount was paid out of the separate funds of Krishnan Madhavan. It is the definite case of the plaintiffs that he had advanced this as a loan to the tarwad. Such a case is set up in paragraph 5 of the plaint. A suit for recovery of the amount advanced as a loan is governed either by Article 57 or Article 61 of the Limitation Act and the period of 3 years runs from the date on which the loan was advanced. When the suit falls under any of the specific Articles of the Limitation Act, there is no scope for invoking the residuary Article, i. e. Art.120 of the Limitation Act. In this view of the matter, the suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 800/- already referred to should have been instituted within three years from 1104 the date of Ext. A. Even if the period is taken to have been suspended in view of the fact that Krishnan Madhavan who had to sue happened to be the karnavan and he had to sue himself as the representative of the karnavan, that difficulty was over when he died on 7-11-1116. His widow and children who succeeded to his right to recover the loan could have instituted the suit at any time after 7-11-1116. Their cause of action for such suit arose on 7-11-1116. The suit not having been instituted within three years of that date, is clearly barred by limitation. Viewed in another aspect also, the bar of limitation stands against the plaintiffs. When there arose disputes about the possession of the property covered by Ext. A, the defendants had repudiated the right of these plaintiffs to retain possession of the property. The position taken up by the defendants was that the widow and children of Krishnan Madhavan had no right whatever to the property. This denial of the right of the plaintiffs was a denial of even their right to the sum of Rs. 800/- said to have been advanced by him for acquiring the property. On the date of such denial, the plaintiffs' cause of action, for suing for recovering the amount, arose. The denial and repudiation of the plaintiffs' rights was in the year 1118. The present suit is even beyond three years from that date. Thus, in any view of the case, the claim for this amount of Rs. 800/- is also barred by limitation. The decree of the lower court calls for no interference.