Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.

1. I am very sorry to have come to the conclusion in this second appeal that it should be dismissed. Plaintiff was a subscriber to a kuri chit. He instituted the suit against two sets of defendants, defendants 1 to 4, whose predecessor was himself a subscriber to the kuri chit, and who, made default in the payment of an installment, and defendants 5 to 9 whose predecessor was the manager of this kuri chit. The predecessor of defendants 1 to 4 when he bid for and obtained the proceeds of a sale at an auction executed a security bond in favour of the manager. That document was registered and by that some immovable property belonging to him was charged with the payment of the amount of any subscription which might have to be paid by him. The plaintiffs case was that under the kuri chit whenever a subscriber made default in the payment of a subscription payable by him the person who as the highest bidder purchases the chit will be entitled to sue for the recovery of his subscription. No question arises her(c) with regard to that, because it is submitted that as on a simple contract the remedy is barred by the law of limitation. He has, therefore, to rely u