JUDGMENT
Krishnaswami Aiyar, J.
1. I think the Subordinate Judge is wrong in his view regarding the claim with reference to the sum of Rs. 50 asked to be paid to Abu Bakar Sait. The facts are : The plaintiff gave a certain sum of money to the defendant and asked him to make a payment of Rs. 50 to one Abu Bakar to whom the plaintiff owed money. The position of the defendant was that of an agent who defaulted to make the payment. Abu Bakar sued the plaintiff and obtained a decree. It is perfectly clear that on the date of the decree, at all events, the plaintiff knew that his agent, the defendant, was guilty of misconduct in not making the payment which he had required him to make. The Subordinate Judge calculates the period of limitation from the date of the payment by the plaintiff to Abu Bakar. I cannot see how that furnishes the starting point for limitation. The case appears to me to fall within Article 90 of the Limitation Act and. this view is supported by the decision in Civil Revision Petition No. 763 of 1908 and also by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Lal v. Gulam Husain (1907) I.L.R. 29 A. 579. I modify the decree of the Subordinate Judge as regards this sum of Rs. 50 with interest and the costs incurred by the plaintiff in respect of his defence to Abu Bakar’s suit. I modify the decree with costs here.
[But see the judgment of Krishnaswami Aiyar J., in C.R.P. 293 of 1910. – ED.]
