JUDGMENT
1. The agent was liable to pay the balance after deducting certain items of expenditure to the principal. There was a debt due by him. The son’s liability arose at the same time. The fact that the father misappropriated the sum, even if the respondents’ allegations be true, or that he made himself criminally answerable, does not absolve the son from the liability already incurred. The decisions in Kanemar Venkappayya v. Krishnacharya 31 M. 161; 2 M.L.T. 529; 17 M.L.J. 613; 3 M.L.T. 353 and Gurunathan Chetty v. Raghavalu Chetty 31 M. 472 apply. As regards the respondent’s plea of limitation, it was not contended in either of the Courts below that there was a demand and refusal and time ran from the date of refusal. We disallow the plea. We reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs throughout as regards defendants Nos. 2 to 8.
