1. The decision of the learned Judge is right. Mr. Vatadachariar draws attention to the written statement in the suit of the manager against the subscriber and argues that the claim for profits was pleaded in that suit and must be deemed to have been decided against the subscriber; the defence in that case was one of discharge and no question of set off arose for decision.
2. The learned Vakil broadly contends that in all cases where independent obligations arise out of the same contract, the defendant is bound to plead his claim by way of reduction of the amount sued for. We do not think that such a contention is well founded,| The authorities cited by him Vinayak v. Dattatraya I.L.R. (1902) B 661 and Ruhmani Rai v. Venkatesh I.L.R. (1907) B 527 do not support him in that contention. In those cases, the learned Judges held that the plaintiff omitted to sue for a right which was an adjunct to the main right claimed and that it was not open to him to agitate the matter again.
3. A defendant who has a claim for set off is not bound to put it forward in answer to the suit against him and his failure cannot take away his right to sue for the amount subsequently.
4. There can be no res judicata under such circumtances. We dismiss the appeal with costs.