The main legal point established in the judgment is that the claim for recovery of subscription for a specific purpose is not barred by limitation if the amount does not become payable to the plaintiff as soon as it is collected.

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The plaintiff, the District Board of Ramnad through its President, is the appellant. The question in this appeal is whether the appellants claim to recover from the defendant Rs. 1,031 subscription collected by him for the purpose of constructing a bridge over the Paralyar river is barred by limitation. A sum of Rs. 5,000 was promised by the defendant as personal contribution for the purpose of constructing the bridge and a sum of Rs. 1,031 was collected by him for the same purpose. The river was bridged at a cost of Rs. 29,000 odd and was completed on 12th July, 1924 In the suit out of which this appeal arises the President of the District Board claims both the sums from the defendant. The Lower Court gave a decree for Rs. 5,000 but held that the claim for Rs. 1,031 was barred by limitation applying Article 62 of the Limitation Act.

2. Article 62 prescribes three years for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiffs use and the period begins to run from the date when the money is received. It is clear to us that Article 62 will not apply to cases of this kind, for it has been held that that Article contemplates a suit in which the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the whole of the money received as soon as it is received. See Ma Kyin Ain v. A.R.M.A.L.A. Chettiar Firm A.I.R. 1930 Rang. 197. Article 62 cannot be appropriately applied to a case where the plaintiff is not entitled to the money when it was received by the defendant. In this case it is clear that the amount does not become payable to the plaintiff as soon as it is collected. The plaintiff can claim the amount only after the work has been begun and some steps have been taken towards the construction of the bridge. It follows from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Kedarnaih Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed I.L.R. (1886) Cal. 64 that a promise to pay a subscription becomes enforceable as soon as any definite steps have been taken in furtherance of the object and on the faith of the promised subscription. This decision has been followed by this Court in Maharaja Mudaliar v. Sendanatha Mudaliar 1918 M.W.N. 173. The evidence in this case shows that the construction work of the bridge could not have been begun earlier than 1923. The suit was instituted on the 5th September, 1925. If Article 62 does not apply, then the only Article applicable is 120. The suit is therefore clearly within time and it cannot be held to be barred by limitation.

3. The decree of the Lower Court in so far as it relates to Rs. 1,031 is set aside and the plaintiff will be given a decree for this amount also, with costs here and in the Court below.