Krishnaswami Ayyar, J.

1. The suit is by a husband for restitution of conjugal rights. The District Judge has dismissed it as barred by limitation. We are unable to agree with him. It is true Article 35 of the Limitation Act of 1877 bars the suit for restitution if there has been a demand and refusal more than two years before. The decisions of this Court and of the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts are clear [Saravanai Perumal Pillai v. Poovayi I.L.R. (1905) Mad. 436, Dhanjibhoy Bomanji v. Hirabai I.L.R. (1901) Bom. 644, Asirunnessa Khatun v. Buzloo Meah I.L.R. (1907) Cal. 79.]

2. But in this case a suit was brought after a demand and refusal for restitution of conjugal rights (Original Suit No. 313 of 1903). And that was compromised on the 25th July 1904. By the compromise (exhibit I) the parties agreed to live together "according to the custom of the world." The agreement further provides "If on any day subsequent to this and for any reason whatever you (the wife) should not like to live with me but want to go away from me, I agree to give you Rs, 350." It is impossible to contend after this agreement that the previous demand and refusal furnish the starting point for the ru