V R Sen, J—This is an application by the Plaintiff Govinda for modification of the judgment and decree of the Court of the 2nd Civil Judge, Class II, Nagpur empowered under Section 18, C.P. Courts Act.

2. The Plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of 3 khandis' and 9 kudoes' of juar. In default of delivery of grain, he asked for a decree for Rs. 250/-. His case is that he works as a carpenter in Ajni where the Defendant Haribhau has land. The Defendant had employed the services of the Plaintiff as a carpenter for his cultivation for the last 8 years. The Defendant was to pay to the Plaintiff one 'khandi' of juar each year for the repairs done to the agricultural implements by the Plaintiff. If any new work was to be done, the Defendant was to give extra juar. The juar had to be paid on the 'mandwas' of each year. He did work for the Defendant in 1946-47, 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50 and was entitled to 4 khandis' of juar for his work. For new work, he claimed 9 kudoes' of juar. The price of juar was Rs. 72/- per 'khandi'.

3. The Defendant resisted the claim on several grounds. He admitted that the Plaintiff was a carpenter and had done work for him. The Plaintiff was to receive one 'khandi' of juar each year and extra juar had to be given for new work. He, however, denied that any new work was done in 1949-50. He also denied the price of juar. According to him, it was Rs. 50/- per 'khandi'. He mentioned the amount of grain which he had given to the Plaintiff and submitted that nothing was due from him. He also submitted that the claim except for 1949-50 was time-barred.

4. The trial Court found that no extra work was done in 1949-50, that the remuneration for the years in suit had not been paid and that the claim for the years in suit except 1949-50 was barred by limitation. The learned Judge applied Article 7, Limitation Act. He passed a decree upholding the Plaintiff's claim for one 'khandi' of juar for 1949-50. Rupees 50/- were to be paid if the Defendant did not deliver juar.

5. The sole question in this revision is about limitation. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff is that the' claim for 1947-43 and 1948-49 is not barred by limitation. He admits that the claim for 1946-47 is barred. Article 7, according to him, had no application as this was not a suit for wages. He cites - Vedagiri Sastriar v. Jagathaguru Sankarachariar Swamigal, Kumbakonam, 1935 AIR(Mad) 128 & - Laxminarayan Nathmal v. Shriram,1938 AIR(Nag) 286. He contended that either Article 115 or Article 120 was applicable.

6. Article 7, Limitation Act, is in the following terms:

Period The time from which Description of suit of limi- period begins to tation. run.

7. For the wages of a One year. When the wages ac- household servant, crue due. artisan or labourer.

The Plaintiff is clearly not a house-hold servant. In my opinion, he is an artisan and the remuneration which he receives for the work done by him constitutes wages within the meaning of Article 7. In - Namdeo v. Ramkrishna Mahadeo, 1934 AIR(Nag) 260, it was held that a carpenter is an artisan within the meaning of Article 7 and a suit for wages by him is governed by Article 7 and not by Article 102 or Article 56. The facts in AIR 1935 Mad 128 (A) were different. Article 7 did not arise for consideration in that case. The observation that the test to see whether emoluments are wages is whether the relationship of employer and servant exists has to be read in the light of the facts in that case. It is not necessary that the relationship must be of a master and servant for the application of Article 7. In AIR 11938 Nag 286 (B) the suit was by a goldsmith. It was held that he was not an artisan within the meaning of Article 7. Shri Shidhaye relies on the following observation in that case: Article 7 appears to me to apply to a case when a household servant, artisan or labourer is hired on wages per day, per week or per month and it could not apply to the remuneration of a skilled workm