JUDGMENT
1. In our judgment the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that Article 120 and not Article 91 applied to the case, and that the suit, which was instituted more than six years after the date of the cause of action, was barred. We cannot concur with appellants’ pleader that in the case Pachamuthu v. Chinnappan I.L.R., 10 Mad., 213 the decision as to the only article of the Limitation Act which affected plaintiffs’ right was a mere obiter dictum. The question stated by the learned Judges for decision was whether Article 91 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act applied, and, assuming that plaintiff had a right to sue, they decided that Article 120 was the only article which governed the case. Following that decision, we hold that plaintiffs’ suit was barred and dismiss this second appeal with costs.
