Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.

1. The defendants in the suit from which this second appeal has arisen are appellants before us. The suit was instituted as an ordinary suit for an account of the management of certain properties belonging to the Zamorins estate by defendant as. agent.

2. The first question that has been argued by the learned vakil for the appellants was that the lower appellate Court was wrong in holding that the plaintiffs claim was not barred by the law of limitation. The argument with regard to both in the Court of first instance and in the appellate Court appears to have proceeded entirely on the question which was the appropriate article to be applied to the facts of this case, the defendants contending that the Article applicable was 90 and not 89. Article 90 was invoked because according to the third column of that article time would begin to run from the date on which the neglect or misconduct becomes known to the plaintiff, the allegation in this case being that the misconduct became known to the plaintiff even during the currency of the agency. So far as the question which is the proper article applicable is concerned, there can be no doubt at all here that t