LALSINGH Vs. JIWANRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Jiwanram, the respondent in this Court sued the defendant, the adopted son of one Hari Singh, for an account of the produce of certain fields for the years 1913 to 1919. He alleged that Hari Singh retained the produce of the fields during these years on his behalf. It appears quite clear that on the plaint allegations either Article 62 or Article 89, Lim. Act, would govern the suit. In either case, the claim was barred by time. The lower appellate Court considers that because the defendant is not actually a contracting party, Article 89, Schedule 1, Lim. Act, will not apply. There is no force in this reasoning and it receives no support from any dicta in Kumeda Charan v. Aushutosh [1913] 17 C.W.N. 5.

(2.) IF there were something in the nature of a contract of agency, the agent or his representative could be sued, and the suit would fall under Article 89. Apart from this, it is admitted before me that Hari Singh returned the fields in his lifetime, so that the cause of action accrued when he returned the fields. The defendant stated that the fields were given to him on a lease in order to satisfy a debt due to him. If this is the case, there was probably, an implied promise to pay the surplus profit to the plaintiff, but clearly a suit for such profit would be governed by Article 62, Lim. Act. The lower appellate Court has failed to come to a clear finding regarding the facts but in any casa the suit is barred by limitation. The order of the lower appellate Court, directing further enquiry into questions of fact is therefore set aside, and the decree of the first Court, dismissing the suit is restored. Costs in all Courts will be borne by the plaintiff. Pleader's fee in this Court Rs. 50.