Surta vs Chandgi

Manmohan Singh Liberhan, J.—This is an appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated 19.1.1978 of Additional District Judge, Hissar.

Chandgi Plaintiff sought recovery of Rs. 5,645/- on the basis of a bahi entry. The suit was contested by denyingthe execution of the Bahi entry, which was alleged to be a forged document. The suit was stated to be barred by time. Numerous other objections were taken.

The trial Court dismissed the suit solely on the ground that it was barred by time. The Bahi entry was held to have been executed by the Defendants for a consideration. All other issues were found in favour of the Plaintiff.

On appeal by the Plaintiff, the lower appellate Court found, on the agreement of the counsel that the disputed Bahi entry showed that the Defendants had taken Rs. 5,645/- for purchase of buffalos on 20.7.1971 (Sawan Badi 13 Sambat 2028). A reading of the second part of the entry shows that the Defendants agreed to pay back the amount on 3.9.1971 (Bhadon Shudi 13 Sambat 2028).

It is not disputed at the bar that the entry neither amounts to a promissory note nor a bond. It is pure and simple an agreement for the refund of the money taken by the Defendants.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the cause of action, would arise on 3.9.1971, that is the date by which the Defendants undertook to repay the loan. It is the breach of the agreement which occurred on 3.9.1971 on account of non payment that will give a terminus quo for commencement of limitation for the recovery of the amount. The counsel for the Appellant has not been able to controvert the said contention substantially. It cannot be disputed that a party can have damages only when its right accrues. In view of the agreement to repay the amount the right to recover the amount accrued to the Plaintiff only on non-payment of the amount on the date agreed between the parties. He could seek his remedy to enforce the agreement for refund of the amount only after the expiry of the date by which the amount was repayable. It is not disputed that if the cause of action is taken to have arisen on 3.9.1971, the suit is well within limitation, having been instituted on 31.8.1974. Thus, I confirm the finding of the lower appellate Court that the suit is within limitation.

Counsel for the Appellant challenged the execution of the Bahi entry. Both the Courts below after appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence have found as a fact that the Bahi entry has been duly executed by the Defendants. No error of law in the said finding of fact has been brought to my notice. It is a concurrent finding of fact and I affirm the same.

In view of my above observations, I find no force in the appeal. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.