1. This appeal has been preferred against, a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, who stated that the appeal before him was an appeal from a final decree in a suit for accounts. The plaintiff is said to be a brass merchant in Moradabad town who finding himself unable to collect certain dues appointed one Nisar Husain as agent for making these collections. This Nisar Hosain made cer-tain collections and made certain payments to his principal, but on his death it was found that there were certain sums due from him to the principal, and the latter filed this suit. In both the Courts below the suit was conducted on the lines that the heirs of Nisar Husain were liable for any articles belonging to the plaintiff which hadbeen entrusted to Nisar Husain and for any sums which Nisar Husain realised on plaintiff's account. Both the Courts below went into the question of these accounts and decided that articles of a certain value were with Nisar Husairi and that Nisar Husain had made certain collections, from which he was entitled to deduct 25 per cent, under an agreement with the plaintiff and passed their decrees on the basis of their findings on these points. There is no indication whatever that in either of these Courts any question was raised as to the defendant's liability to make- good any sums-which Nisar Husain had not collected, and had accordingly allowed to become barred by time.
2. It is on this point now that the learned Counsel for the appellant wishes to address the Court. It is true that there was a condition in the agreement between the plaintiff and Nisar Husain that the latter would in the event of his being unable to realize certain sums either get a fresh document executed in favour of the plaintiff or file a suit against the debtors, but when the liability of Nisar Husain has not been discussed in either of the Courts below for his failure to collect any of these sums, we cannot entertain such an objection in second appeal. As the case has been decided by the Courts below the only questions are questions of fact and we cannot interfere with the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, who finds, first, that the articles in the possession of Nisar Husain were of a certain value, secondly, that the amount realized by Nisar Husain was a certain amount, and thirdly, that certain sums should be deducted from Nisar Husain on account of expenses, commissions, and the amount already paid to the plaintiff. Similarly we cannot entertain the cross-objection which challenges the same findings from the point of view of the respondents. We accordingly dismiss both this appeal and the cross-objection with costs.