The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Limitation Act, particularly Article 62, in cases involving the recovery of stolen money and the distinction between a claim for compensation and a claim for the recovery of a debt.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law relating to limitation. The appellant posed as a Doctor, but he had no qualifications. On the 25th February, 1934, the respondent had the misfortune to consult him and underwent an examination at the appellants consulting room in Yunus Ali Street in Triplicane. He had with him at the time a wallet, containing Rs. 1,500 in currency notes. The wallet was in one of the pockets of the respondents coat. For the purpose of the examination he had to take off the coat and he hung it up on a nail in the wall. The appellant took the opportunity to steal the wallet and the respondent did not discover the loss until the next day. When he did so he laid a complaint against the appellant. This led to the latters arrest and conviction. The appellant was found guilty of the theft on the 24th July, 1934 and sentenced to a period of six months imprisonment. On the 6th August, 1937, more than three years after the conviction the respondent instituted in the City Civil Court the suit out of which this appeal arises for the purpose of recovering from the appellant the Rs. 1,500 stolen from him and damages for being deprived of the use of the money. The appellant pleaded the Limitation Act, but his plea was rejected by the Principal Judge on the ground that the suit was one for the recovery of a debt and that the case came within the Full Bench decision of this Court in Rama Seshayya v. Sri Tripurasundari Cotton Press, Beswada (1925) 50 M.L.J. 520 : I.L.R. 49 Mad. 468 .

2. In the first place, the appellant says that in view of the wording of the plaint the suit must be treated as one for the recovery of compensation for a wrong done to the plaintiff. In the second place, he says that even if the plaint can be treated as embodying a claim for the recovery of a debt the case does not fall within the Full Bench decision (Rama Seshayya v. Sri Tripurasundari Cotton Press, Bezwada (1925) 50 M.L.J. 520 : I.L.R. 49 Mad. 468 and that the appropriate Article would be Article 62, which would also mean that the suit was time barred. As so often happens the plaint is very loosely drawn, but the Court is prepared to assume that the claim set forth in the plaint is a claim on the debt and not a claim for the recovery of compensation, apart from a plea that the appellant should pay interest by way of damages on the money for the period during which the respondent was deprived of its use. The Principal Judge has rejected the respondents claim for interest on the debt and has granted him a decree for merely Rs. 1,500 with costs. The respondent has not objected to the decision with regard to interest and therefore so far as this Court is concerned the suit is merely a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,500. If the suit were to be regarded as a suit for damages it is common ground that it would be time barred.

3. In Rama Seshayya v. Sri Tripurasundari Cotton Press, Beswada (1925) 50 M.L.J. 520 : I.L.R. 49 Mad. 468 a shareholder sued a company for the recovery of a dividend which had not been paid to him. The Court had to consider which of four Articles of the Limitation Act applied, namely, Article 62, 115, 116 or 120. The Court held that the Limitation Act does not contain an article applicable to a debt simpliciter and therefore the Residuary Article 120 was the only one applicable. Article 62 prescribes a period of three years for a suit to recover money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as money received by the defendant for the plaintiffs use; but the Court did not consider that this article applied to a suit by a shareholder to recover a dividend payable to him by the company. If Article 62 does not apply in the present case, it is clear that Article 120 must apply on the same parity of reasoning as is set forth in the judgment in Rama Seshayya v. Sri Tripurasundari Cotton Press, Beswada (1925) 50 M.L.J. 520 : I.L.R. 49 Mad. 468 .

4. In the present case the trial Judge c