GOBIND CHANDRA Vs. COLLECTOR OF DACCA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am of opinion that this appeal should be dismissed with costs. The plaintiff in the year 1842 purchased the 3 annas, 4 gandas share of one Balaram, in an ijmali mehal in Pergunna Amirabad. It is stated that a batwara was going on in the mehal, both before and after the date of the plaintiff's purchase, and it is added that as the amount of Government revenue due from each sharer could not on that account then be precisely ascertained, the several sharers paid in what they thought due from them on account of the Government revenue. In July 1864, the plaintiff asked for the surplus payment to be made over to him, as by account dated the 23rd March 1857, by which it was ascertained that after all necessary deductions there stood a balance of Rs. 655 and odd annas in his favour, but the Collector refused the prayer, stating that the money was not in the Treasury, having been previously drawn by certain judgment creditors of Balaram.

(2.) The plaintiff has instituted this suit 10 years 16 days after the date of the adjustment of accounts, and 2 years 8 months after the rejection of his application for the 655 rupees. The first question is whether the suit is barred or not.

(3.) The lower appellate Court has held that the suit is barred by limitation, and that the case does not come within the provisions of clause 15, section 1, Act XIV of 1859. It held that limitation is to run on the basis that the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff from the date of the adjustment of the accounts, viz., the 23rd March 1857.