The main legal point established in the judgment is that the first defendant occupied a fiduciary status and the amount due to the plaintiff was in the nature of a trust, invoking Section 10 of the Limitation Act.

C. R. Bhavadasan, J, The plaintiff did the work of construction of a school building for the defendants. He claimed amounts in that regard. According to him, as per Ext.A8 document dated 30.5.1991 he had commenced the work. The work commenced on 4.6.1991. The work had to be suspended due to an obstacle, which the school authorities had to clear. That took sometime and that delayed the work. As the delay was due to the inaction on the part of the school authorities, he sought enhancement of rates and according to the plaintiff he was granted 10% increase of rates. He presented a bill for Rs.4,01,752.18 towards the purchase of steel and cement, that was approved by the School Committee as per the decision dated 20.11.1992. He had then submitted a bill for Rs.7,32,148.31, which was verified by the second defendant in the suit and approved by the school committee. Another bill for Rs.1,22,520.42 was alsoaccepted and approved by the school committee. Since the school committee did not have sufficient funds at that point of time, the plaintiff was asked to wait, promising that as soon as funds are made available, the amounts will be paid to him. Ext.A5 is the letter which acknowledges the liability of the first defendant. Repeated requests thereafter to release the amount did not invoke response and the school authorities kept on saying that funds were not available with them. They however promised that as soon as funds would be available to them, the demand will be met. Surprisingly he received Ext.A4 letter dated 20.6.2003 in reply to his request for release of amount stating that no amount was due to him and in fact amounts were due to the first defendant from him. This turn around on the part of the first defendant was of considerable surprise to the plaintiff and therefore he approached the court for redressal of his grievances. He claimed a sum of Rs.20,86,913/-with interest at 12%.

2. The first defendant contested the suit. Several contentions were taken, like mis-joinder, non-joinder etc., which are not very relevant in the context. They denied that the plaintiff had done any work for the Church and infact their case was that the claim put forward by the plaintiff is a totally false one. It was a result of the collusion and fraud played by the plaintiff and the second defendant. They denied of having entered into any agreement with the plaintiff. In fact a reading of the written statement would show that except for total denial of all the allegations, nothing more is stated in the written statement.

3. Based on the pleadings available in the case, issues were raised by the court below. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.W.1 and 2 and documents marked as Exs.A1 to A8 from the side of the plaintiff. First defendant examined D.W.1 and Exts.B1 to B3 series were marked. The court below on an evaluation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed by him. However he was non-suited on the ground of limitation. Hence the appeal.

4. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the finding of the court below that the suit is barred by limitation is justified in law.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the court below had on an evaluation of the evidence had come to the conclusion that amounts as claimed by the plaintiff is due to him from the first defendant. However, the court below held against him on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel went on to point out that the Church had promised that as soon as funds were available with them, they would pay off the amount due to the plaintiff. Plaintiff kept on making demand for the amount and the defendants replied that they would pay the amount as soon as they have funds with 12% interest. At no point of time, except as per Ext.A4, the school authorities had denied their liability towards him. The Church authorities occupied a fiduciary capacity and it was not pos