SUKHDEI Vs. NAIPAL RAM JAGANNATH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the defen dants' second appeal. The trial court sub stantially decreed the suit and the lower appellate court has affirmed the said de cree. The defendants have felt aggrieved and have filed the instant second appeal in this Court.

(2.) I am reproducing the following portion of the judgment of the lower ap pellate court with a view to state the facts of the case:

(3.) HOWEVER , I think the find ings of the courts below on the ques tion of limitation can be affirmed on an alternative ground which has been pressed on me by Shri R. N. Singh, the learn ed counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. He has contended that if Article 1 of the new Limitation Act was not applicable on the ground that the account between the parties was not mutual, open and current then it will be Art. 91 (b) of the new Limitation Act which will be applic able to the facts of the case and under the said Article also the suit will be with in time. The said Article lays down as under:- Three years When the property is wrong fully taken or injured or when the detainer's posses sion becomes unlawful. It may be stated here that the said provi sion corresponds with Article 49 of the old Limitation Act. Shri Singh's conten tion is that the suit in effect is a suit based on bailment and, therefore, the limitation started only when the defen dants illegally failed to return the raw material claimed by the plaintiff. Shri Singh has placed reliance on Mt. Laddoo v. Jammaluddin, (AIR 1920 All 353 (2)) where it is laid down:-