The right to sue accrues from the denial of the right, not from the death of the beneficiary. Section 10 of the Limitation Act exempts suits against trustees from limitation, and is not limited to beneficiaries.

Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHANDRA REDDY, J. : -

This appeal is against the judgment of our learned brother Justice Jaganmohan Reddy and involves the interpretation of S. 10 and Art.120 of the Limitation Act. The question we are called upon to decide arises in the following way.

2. One Gangadharam who died in the year 1923 deposited with his eldest son the 1st defendant Rs. 9900/- before his death for purposes of investment. In regard to this fund he executed a will by and under which the 1st defendant was directed to pay interest accruing thereon on this amount to his wife Mahalakshmi and after her the money was to be taken in four equal shares by his four sons including the eldest son, the 1st defendant. Mahalakshmi died on 17-5-1937.

By the time of her death, a portion of the interest was undisbursed. It is to this amount that the plaintiff as a stridhana heir of Mahalakshmi has laid claim which has given rise to this appeal. We are not concerned with the other disputes between the parties and therefore we need not refer to them. It appears that there was a prior litigation between the 1st defendant and his brothers in regard to this outstanding interest in which the 1st defendant set up a right of his two sisters including the plaintiff to this amount.

It was pleaded by him that as their mother was entitled to all the interest that accrued during her life-time, her stridhana heirs only could receive it and none of the sons of Gangadharam had any manner of right to this. This defence of his found acceptance with the trial Court which was ultimately confirmed by the High Court in a second appeal. Some time later i.e., in the beginning of 1949 a demand was made by the plaintiff for this money. Her right to this money was repudiated by the 1st defendant. Hence the plaintiff was obliged to bring the present action.

3. One of the defences to the suit was that it was barred by limitation. The trial Court negatived this objection on the ground that S. 10 of the Limitation Act exempted the suit from the bar of limitation. On appeal, the District Judge disagreed with this view of the trial Court and dismissed the claim of the plaintiff in this behalf. He also expressed the opinion that Art. 120 of the Limitation Act did not avail the plaintiff as the suit was not brought within six years of her mothers death.

In a second appeal from that judgment it was decided by Justice Jaganmohan Reddy that the claim in regard to the interest was within time and that the action was governed by Art. 120 of the Limitation Act and that the suit was well within time as it was instituted within six years of the denial of the plaintiffs right to receive this money. He took the view that S. 10 of the Act had no application. The learned Judge granted leave for filing this Letters Patent Appeal.

4. In this appeal, the conclusion of our learned brother that the terminus a quo is not the death of the mother but the denial of the right of the plaintiff to the amount is canvassed. The period of limitation under that article is six years from the time the right to sue accrues. The question for consideration is as to when the right to sue can be said to have accrued within the meaning of this article.

At the forefront of the arguments, it is contended by Mr. Ramakrishna Rao that the right of the plaintiff arose the moment her mother died and therefore the period of six years should be computed from that date. It was submitted by him that there was an essential distinction between the right to sue and a cause of action. The learned counsel elaborated that the plaintiff will have a right to lay an action although there was no cause of action for such a suit.

As substantiating this proposition he called in aid a judgment of a Bench of the Madras High Court in Lakshminarayana Chettiar, In re, 1954-1 Mad LJ 403 at p. 419 : (AIR 1954 Mad 594 at p. 602) (FB) (A). The Full Bench after dealing with the question in regard to S. 17 of the Court-fees Act sent th