1. In Second Appeal No. 1260 of 1898: The District Judge has held that the suit is not barred on the ground that the pattah was tendered within three years of the date of institution of the suit. But as has been held in recent decisions of this Court--Venkatagiri Raja v. Ramasami I.L.R(1898) . 21 M. 413 and Pardmasiva Goundan v. Kandappa Goundan (1897) 8 M.L.J. 201. Second Appeal No. 1091 of the cause of action accrues on the date when the rent becomesdue according to the contract, where a contract exists, and in the absence of a contract, according to usage. In the present case there was admittedly no contract and admittedly the respective dates when the instalments of rent for Fasli 1302 became due were all more than 3 years prior to the date of the suit. The suit is, therefore, barred, unless it be saved by any acknowledgments made which would have that effect.
2. Having regard to the fact that the parties may have proceeded upon the view of the law taken in decisions to the contrary effect of the decisions referred to above, and that the landlord may not improbably have, therefore, overlooked the necessity of proving that the claim was acknowledged in whole or in part in case any such acknowledgment may have been made, we think it right instead of allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit, to direct the District Judge to submit a finding-on the question. whether any such acknowledgment in writing which would have the effect of saving the claim from the bar of limitation either wholly or in part exists. The parties will be at liberty to adduce evidence on the question. The finding will be returned within a month from the date of the receipt of this order. Seven days will be allowed for filing objections after the finding has been posted up in this Court.
3. In compliancy with this order the District Judge returned the finding that there was no acknowledgment of liability. The Court accepted the finding and in reversal of the Lower Court's judgment dismissed the suit as barred by limitaiton.