MOOLCHAND Vs. RAMJIWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil second appeal by the defendant, Moolchand, against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Alwar, dated the 12th of April,1952, confirming on appeal the judgment and decree of the court of the Munsif, Alwar, dated the 8th of August, 1951, by which a decree of Rs. 965/-was granted in favour of the plaintiff, Ramjiwan, against the defendant, Moolchand.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that both the plaintiff and the defendant, Ramjiwan, and Moolchand were employed in Jai Paltan, Alwar and they went abroad on active service during World War II. The case of the plaintiff is that he assigned a portion of his salary in favour of Moolchand and in consequence thereof, in all, an amount of Rs. 965/- was paid to Moolchand. This amount was to be refunded by Moolchand to the plaintiff on his return from abroad. But the defendant failed to return it. It was also alleged that the plaintiff advanced to the defendant an amount of Rs. 300/- in addition to the aforesaid amount after his return from the overseas. The defendant denied having received the amount of Rs. 965/ -. He admitted that this amount was received by him but it was pleaded that this payment was made to him in consideration of certain outstandings of the defendant against the plaintiff and for certain expenditures that were undertaken by the defendant for the plaintiff. Both the courts below held that he defendant failed to prove that any money was outstanding against the plaintiff or that he had undertaken any expenditures on his account. As the receipt of the amount was admitted by the defendant the suit of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 965/- was decreed. As regards the amount of Rs. 300/- the plaintiff failed to prove its payment to the defendant and his claim in respect of this amount was dismissed. It was also urged before the courts below by the defendant that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by the law of limitation and in this connection both the courts held that the suit of the plaintiff was governed by Art. 60 and the cause of action, therefore, arose to the plaintiff when he made a demand for the money after his return from overseas and thus the suit was within three years from the date of demand and was within time.