JUDGMENT

1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought under the following circumstances. One Jai Ram was the owner of certain Immovable property. Upon his death in 1910 disputes arose between his widow Musammat Bibi Kunwar and his nephew Baijnath. The former alleged that Jai Ram was separate and that she, as his widow, was entitled to his property. Baijnath, who was the brother's son of Jai Ram, asserted that he and Jai Ram were members of a joint family, and that, therefore, upon Jai Ram's death he succeeded to the property by right of survivorship. These disputes were raised in mutation proceedings. The Court of first instance held that the family was joint and ordered the name of Baijnath to be entered in the revenue papers. This order was passed on the 23rd of December 1910. On appeal the aforesaid order was set aside and the Appellate Court held on the 18th of April 1911 that Bibi Kunwar was entitled to the property, her husband having been separate from his nephew, and directed her name to be entered. Upon the passing of the order of the Court of first instance Baijnath lock possession and between the date of the order of the first Court and that of the order of the Appellate Court he collected rents and profits to the extent of Rs. 1,218-14-8 from tenants and paid Rs. 1,226 8 3 on account of Government revenue. After the passing of the order of the Appellate Court be had to relinquish possession as he apparently acquiesced in the decision of that Court. Some of the tenants sued him for a refund of the rents which be bad realised from them and obtained decrees. He thereupon assigned to the plaintiff his alleged right to recover from the defendant the revenue which he had paid in respect of the property. The plaintiff by virtue of this assignment brought the present suit for recovery of Rs. 1,226 8-3 and interest thereon. He alleged his cause of action to have arisen when the tenants obtained a decree against Baijnath on the 29th of March 1913. The suit was instituted on the 28th of March 1916. The defendant pleaded limitation and the question was what Article of the Limitation Act governs the present suit. The Court of first instance decreed a part of the claim. It did not decide what article of the Limitation Act applied to the case. The lower Appellate Court was of opinion that Article 97 was applicable and that limitation was to be computed under that article from the 18th of April 1911, the date of the decision of the Appellate Court when Baijnath relinquished possession. That Court dismissed the suit as time barred. In our opinion Article 97 has no application to the present case. That article provides for suits for money paid upon an existing consideration which afterwards fails. The consideration for payment of the revenue could not be the realisation of rents from the tenants. The revenue was paid because the property was liable for revenue and demand was made for it. It was payable by the person in possession, whether he had collected rents or not, Therefore, the collection of rents was not the consideration for the payment of the revenue, as held by the Court of first instance and contended for by the learned Vakil for the appellant, and a refund of the rents cannot be said to be a failure of the consideration or part thereof. The learned Vakil for the appellant has asked us to apply Article 97 or Article 120. We do not think that Article 97 is applicable. If we assume that the consideration for the payment of revenue was possession by Baijnath of the property of the defendant that consideration failed, as the learned Judge says, when possession was removed in April 19l1. We do not, however, think that it could be said that the consideration for the payment of revenue Was the fact that Baijnath was in possession. In our judgment the article applicable is Article 61, which clearly applies to oases of this kind. That article provides for suits "for money payable to the plaintiff for money paid for the d