MANAKCHAND Vs. SAMSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for damages. The appellant sold a she-buffalo to the respondent in Section 1995. There was a calf which the appellant did not include in the sale. According to the plaintiff it was agreed on Kartik vad 13 Section 1995 that the calf should be taken over by the respondent to be returned to the appellant when the she buffalo would calve again and on failure to do so would pay Rs. 25 by the latest on Kartik Sud 13 Section 1996. On failure to pay on the appointed date, the amount was to carry interest at 34 per cent per annum. The suit was filed on 23rd February 1945 corresponding to Fulgun Sud 18/2001 for recovery of Rs. 50 The defendant admitted having purchased the buffalo but denied the remaining allegations and the execution of the agreement The trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 33 but on appeal, the learned Sub-Judge held that the suit was barred by limitation. He accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit.

(2.) In this appeal, it is argued that the correct article applicable to the suit was Article 65, Marwar Limitation Act, 1927, and not Article 49 as held by the lower Court. The former gives 6 years limitation from the date of cause of action which in this case is said to be Kartik Sad 13 Section 1996.

(3.) In order to appreciate the arguments, the consideration of the two articles, and Article 48, which is connected with succeeding article, is necessary. Articles 48, 49 and 65, Marwar Limitation Act, 1927, are as follows :