BABASA BAKALE Vs. HOMBANNA RAYAPPA HOMBANNAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this appeal is one of limitation, and to appreciate it is necessary to know what the suit is about.

(2.) The plaintiff was the commission agent of a partnership firm consisting of the three defendants, and brought this suit to recover Rs. 2,800 as being the balance due to him at the foot of an account existing between him and the defendants, The suit was defended only by defendant No. 1, who challenged certain items in the account, some of which were disallowed by the trial Court, and a decree was passed against him for a sum of Rs. 1,568 odd. The decree was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. In the appellate Court the defendants raised two contentions: (1) that no instructions were given to the plaintiff by the defendants for the purchase of 300 bags of tamarind, and (2) the claim in respect of it was barred by the law of limitation. The appellate Court rejected both the contentions and confirmed the decree of the trial Court. Neither Court, unfortunately, has mentioned the Art. of the Indian Limitation Act applicable to the case.

(3.) Mr. Nilkanth for the appellant has raised only one question. He says that the claim of these 300 bags is barred by limitation under Art. 61 of the Indian Limitation Act. He argues that the claim being one for recovery of the price of goods, limitation would begin to run from the date the price was paid by the agent to the merchant from whom he bought the goods, that that fact had not been considered by the lower Courts, and therefore the case should be remanded for reconsidering the question.