LIMITATION ACT - RECOVERY OF MONEY - ARTICLE 120 - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY DUE UNDER AN AWARD - LIMITATION STARTS FROM THE DATE WHEN THE RIGHT TO SUE ACCRUED - RIGHT TO SUE ACCRUES WHEN THE DEFENDANTS HAD ASKED THE ARBITRATOR NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE DIVISION OF THE PROPERTY.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff and defendants were brothers who inherited property from their father. They referred the question of partition of the joint family property to arbitration. The arbitrators gave an award on 13-9-1931 with respect to the division of house property. In this partition, houses worth Rs. 67500/-were given, to Jagmohan Singh and worth Rs. 65500/to badri Prasad. In order to equalise the shares, the arbitrators provided that Jagmohan Singh shall pay Badri Prasad half of the amount for which Bhargavawala house was purchased and of the entire expenses incurred on repairs and shall keep the house in his share. The brothers accepted these terms in writing. After the award, the brothers referred the dispute of partition of the remaining property purchased on 26th January 1932 to arbitration. The arbitrators effected a partition on 10th September 1932 in respect of the villages, lands and some moveables. This partition also was accepted by the brothers. The brothers then made a third reference to arbitration on 21-12-1933 for division of the remaining property. The arbitrators, however, could not make an award and in the meantime the defendants served them with a notice in August 1937 not to proceed with the arbitration. Thus certain old debts consisting of hundis and cheques remained undivided. Plaintiff instituted the suit on 17th July 1943 inter alia for recovery of the two items of money due to him under the first award dated 13th September 1931 and for rendition of the, accounts of the old debts, which had remained undivided.

Finding of the Court:

The lower appeal Court upheld the claim for Rs. 1000/- which was awarded by the panchas for equalisation of the shares oi the house property. As regards the Bhargavawala house, it granted a decree for Rs. 2250/- on account of the plaintiff's shun; of the purchase price. The learned Judge estimated the costs of repairs at Rs. 742/- but left the question of its adjustment in the accounts to be finally made between the parties. As regards the undivided debts, he passed the following order: in view of the above findings, it is hereby ordered that the respondent is entitled to one-half share in the property still left undivided. A commissioner will be appointed to take accounts from the appellants in respect of such property described in para 11 of the plaint and schedule 'a' attached to it, except the M. F. C. Deposits."

Issues: Whether the claim for the two items of money decreed by the lower appeal Court was barred by limitation?

Ratio Decidendi: The suit would be governed by Article 120, schedule I, of the Indian Limitation Act, so far as the recovery of the two items of money is concerned. The period of limitation would, therefore, be six years from the date when the right to sue accrued. As for the first amount of Rs. 1000/-, it was expressly agreed that it would be payable only after the partition was effected. The right to sue, therefore, accrued when the defendants had asked the arbitrator not to proceed with the division of the property. This was some time in August 1937. The suit in respect of this item was, therefore, instituted before the expiry of six years and was accordingly within limitation. As regards the amount payable on account of Bhargavawala house, there is no doubt that no specific time was mentioned for payment. This does not, however, mean that it became payable immediately. At the time of the decision of the panchas, the bulk of the property was still undivided and was under the management of the defendants' father. They could not, therefore, have provided for immediate payment of the amount. Their decision therefore, must be construed only as determining the liability of jagmohan Singh for the amount. In these circumstances the amount could not. be claimed by the plaintiff during the time the proceedings for partition were pending. Therefore, the right to sue accrued when the defendants terminated the authority of the arbitrators to proceed with the partition. Suit for this amount also was, therefore, within limitation.

Final Decision: The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.