The interpretation of the 'right to sue accrues' under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as a continuing right to sue from day to day.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. These four connected Second Appeals have arisen out of two connected suits brought by three Mussalman ladies - one of the suits was brought by two sisters against their two step-brothers and their mother for partition of the properties of their father (including the accretions to the said properties) and the other suit was by the mother of the plaintiffs in the first suit against her said step-sons (the same defendants 1 and 2) for her share. The father died in February 1898 and these suits were brought in July 1911.

2. The Lower Appellate Court modified the order of the Courts First Instance in the plaintiffs favour on the plaintiffs two appeal and dismissed the two appeals of the defendants 1 and 2 preferring to the Lower Appellate Court against those portions of the decrees of the District Munsif which were in the plaintiffs favour. Hence the defendants have now filed these four second appeals. The step-sisters and the step-mother of the appellants have also filed two memoranda of objections in two of the four second appeals because the Lower Courts did not give them their shares in the house standing on the site in Schedule 1 and also gave certain vague directions regarding the mode of partition of that site.

3. The second appeals 2276 and 2278 may be disposed of at once. In these two second appeals the defendants 1 and 2 contend that the plaintiffs ought to have been made liable for their shares of the debts alleged by the defendants to be family debts and also of the expenses alleged to have been incurred by the defendants out of their own pocket for the marriage expenses of their step-sisters. Both the Lower Courts have found that the marriage expenses were incurred out of the profits of the plaintiffs shares in their fathers properties and the alleged family debts either do not exist or were not incurred for purposes binding on the plaintiffs. These are findings of fact which are binding upon us in second appeal. Further, the learned District Judge says that "the findings of the District Munsif as to the debts were not seriously attacked." before him. These second appeals therefore are dismissed with costs.

4. The two remaining second appeals 2275 and 2277 are directed against the award to the plaintiffs of their shares in two sums of Rs. 1,000 and 900 which were received by the defendants land 2 from the mortgage debtors of their father in 1904 and 1909 respectively. The attack is based on three grounds:

(1) That as the plaintiffs did not claim any shares in. the amount of Rs. 1,900 in their plaints as originally framed but claimed only shares in certain immovable properties alleged to have been purchased with the aid of Rs. 1,900 the Lower Appellate Court was wrong in allowing the plaints to be amended by claiming a share in the sums themselves and in awarding such shares (the plaintiffs having failed to prove that the immovable properties were purchased with the aid of the Rs. 1,900.

(2) That even if the amendments were properly allowed, the Lower Appellate Court ought to have granted to the defendants 1 and 2 a further opportunity to meet the plaintiffs case after such amendment.

(3) That the plaintiffs claims for shares in the sum of Bs. 1,900 are barred by limitation.

5. I think there is nothing in the first two contentions. The amendments were, in my opinion, rightly allowed (Order 6 Rule 17). The defendants 1 and 2 in the 12th paragraph of their written statement contended that much more than the value of the plaintiffs shares in these amounts and in the other properties of their father had been spent for the plaintiffs. The 11th issue also was framed on this plea of the defendants and they let in all their evidence on that issue. I agree with the remark of the Lower Appellate Court that "it was quite open to them" (that is, the defendants 1 and 2) "to have shown already what they did with these moneys and I am afraid it would be nothing but a direct incitement to perjury if I allowed them