The District Judge is wrong. The plaintiff's present claim for repayment of the deposit money forms part of the damages he might and should have claimed alternatively in his action for specifics performance. Even if this were not so, the plaintiff's action is barred; for the statute begins to run from the time when the plaintiff first sought to enforce his tight by bringing his action for specific performance. The money was then repayable at once if the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for specific performance, and in that very action he could have recovered it. The general rule is that every suit speaks from the date of plaint and not from the date of the decree though there may be cases (of which this certainly is not one) in which limitation may begin to run from the date of the decree and not the plaint (Bassu Kuar v. Dhum Singh I.L.R. 11 A. 47. The decree of the District Judge is reversed and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs throughout.