1. The District Judge found the plaintiff's case was established the averment in the plaint being that the loan was made on 30th September 1885 and was repayable in one month from that date. The plaint was presented on 24th October 1888. There was also evidence to support the finding of the Judge.
2. Even, therefore, if the admisssion contained in the will does not amount to an acknowledgment, the suit is not barred. We agree with the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rameshwar Mandal v. Ram Chand Roy I.L.R. 10 Cal. 1033, that such a suit will fall under Article 115
Description of suit. | Period of | Time from which period begins to run.
| limitation. |
For compensation for the breach | Three years ... | When the contract is broken, or
of any contract, expess or implied, | | (where there are successive breaches)
not in writing regstered and not | | when the breach in repect which
herein specially provided for. | | the suit is instituted occurs, or (where
| | the breach is continuing) when it
| | ceases.]
For money payable for money | Theree years... | When the loang is made.]
lent. | |
3. The decree of the learned Judge must, therefore, be reversed and that of the District Judge restored, but as this point was not taken before we shall make no order as to costs in this Court. The plaintiff is entitled to other costs.