Sen, J—This is an appeal by the defendant and arises out of a suit tiled by Kaushalyabai against her to recover Rs. 7756-1-6 as the amount due from her deceased husband Motiram.

2. Two questions arise for decision in this appeal: (1) whether the claim of the plaintiff was within limitation; and (2) whether the defendant is liable for the claim of the plaintiff, and if so, for what amount.

3. In order to decide these questions, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts. They are briefly these:

4. One Thakurdas owned an estate valued at Rs. 3,10,000 and carried on extensive money lending business at Damoh and Bilai. He died on 28th October 1918 leaving behind him surviving his two minor daughters, Jamnabai and. Kaushalyabai.

5. Motiram husband of the appellant Mira bai, was appointed the guardian of the property of the minors by the District Court, Saugor, on 27th April 1940 in Miscellaneous Judicial case No. 61 of 1919. Motiram executed a security bond (EX. p-19) on 13th May 1920 for Rs. 45,000. He was formally appointed the guardian of the property of the minors by the District Court by the order dated 14th May 1920 (Ex.P-3). Subsequently he executed another security bond (EX. P-14) on 16th July 1920 for Rs. 55,000. Under the two security bonds, he made himself responsible for the clue performance of his duties and obligations as a guardian and he created a charge on his 12 villages for the due performance of his duties. He continued as a certificated guardian till his death which took place on 5th March 1924. The appellant Mirabai is his widow and is in possession of his estate.

6. After his death, Gopaldas, the maternal grandfather of the minors, was appointed the guardian of their property. He made an application (Ex. P-85) to the District Court, Saugor, on 7th February 1925 in which he complained that Mirabai had not delivered to him the possession of the cash ornaments and clothes belonging to the minors and asked that she be ordered to hand over to him immediately the charge of these articles.

7. Mirabai was represented by a counsel be fore the District Court at several hearings. Page 15 and p. 4 are the copies of the order sheets from 26th March 1925 to 11th April 1931 in Misc. Judicial case No. 61 of 1919.

8. On 26th March 1926, the District Court directed Mirabai to hand over the keys of the safes to the guardian of the minors and asked her to prepare a list of the contents of the safes in the presence of responsible persons and to pay over any sums which she found due from her husband to the minors on an examination of the account books. The guardian of the minors was directed to state whether he claimed any additional sum.

9. 1st May 1925 the guardian stated that he claimed in all Rs. 7700 and filed a statement in support thereof. Mirabai was given a copy of the statement and she was asked to file a reply on 8th May 1925. As she admitted that she had Rs. 3,000 with her, she was directed to deposit that amount in Court on that date and also to hand over the keys. The Court also directed that the ornaments belonging to the minors be checked on 3rd May 1925.

10. As Mirabai did not comply with the directions, the District Court ordered her on 8th May 3.935 to file a reply and to produce the cash before it at Damoh on 22nd June 1925. On that date, the District Court asked the Subordinate Judge, Damoh to take delivery of the articles from her.

11. On 4th July 1925 counsel for. Mirabai undertook to produce the keys and the cash on 6th July 1925. On that date he asked for 7 days time to produce the cash and later in the course of the day produced the keys. Mirabai, however did not reply to the statement made by the guardian of the minors regarding the Rs. 7700, which he claimed as due to the minors from Motiram the deceased. She did not produce the Rs. 3000 which she had undertaken to do.

12. No further action was taken on the application made by Gopaldas to recover the sum which he claimed was due to the minors from the