NAMDEO Vs. RAMKRISHNA MAHADEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The plaintiff is a village carpenter and according to the custom prevalent in the village he did the carpentry work in connexion with ten ploughs of the defendants in two years at the usual rates to be paid in grain at the end of the agricultural year. In para. 5 of the plaint it is stated that Rs. 18 for the first year were due to the plaintiff from the defendants on 2nd February 1931 and Rs. 30 for the next year, on 22nd February 1932. The plaintiff also claimed interest on these amounts. The plaint was filed on 26th January 1933 to recover the aforesaid dues as also dues in connexion with other works done by the plaintiff for the defendant. One of the contentions raised by the defendants was that the claim for which cause of action arose on 2nd February 1931 was barred by time. This contention forms the subject-matter of the fourth point fixed for determination. But the lower Court gave no decision thereon and passed a decree for the two years' dues against the defendants holding their plea of accord and satisfaction unproved. It is against this decision that the defendants have come up to this Court in revision.

(2.) IT was argued for the applicants that the case was governed by Article 7 of the Limitation Schedule as what the plaintiff claimed to recover was in effect wages of an artisan not specifically provided for by Article 4 of the Schedule. On behalf of the non-applicant it was contended that either Article 56 or Article 102, each of which provided a period of three years, is applicable.

(3.) ARTICLE 56 of the Schedule is clearly inapplicable because it refers to "the price of work done by the plaintiff for defendant at his request, where no time is fixed for payment." In the present case it was expressly stated that the payment for the work done was to be made at the end of every agricultural year, on 15th Magh Sudhi, and this fact was not controverted by the defendant in the pleadings. Holding then that Article 7 of the Limitation Schedule applies to the case it is obvious that the claim for the amount which accrued due on 2nd February 1931 was barred by limitation at the date of the suit. I would therefore modify the lower Court's decree by reducing the amount decree by Rs. 22-4-6. Each party will bear its own costs in this Court.