Somayya, J.

1. The plaintiff whose suit for the recovery of certain empty Standard Oil Company four-gallon drums or their value has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court is the appellant in this second appeal. The defendant, while admitting that he received these drums, pleaded that he had returned the drums. Both the lower Courts disbelieved this plea and held that the defendant had not returned any of the drums. The suit has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that it is barred by limitation under Article 49 of the Limitation Act. That Article runs thus:

Suit for other specific mo- Three years. When the property is vable property, or for compen- wrongfully taken or injured, or sation for wrongfully taking or when the detainers possession injuring or wrongfully detaining becomes unlawful. the same.

In this case the plaint alleged that specific movable property was to be returned and that that was the understanding. The prayer is for the return of these drums. Then it was alleged that the defendant was wrongfully detaining them. Therefore, on the allegations in the plaint limitation would start when the defendants possession became unlawful. The lo