1. This is a suit for rent on a registered contract, and the point for our consideration is whether the limitation is three years under Article 110 of the second schedule attached to Act XV of 1877, or whether it falls under Article 116, compensation for the breach of a contract in writing registered. In the former case the period of limitation would be three years; in the latter case, six years. It has been held in this Court that a suit for a sum certain, that is, a suit as it were on a promise to pay, falls within Article 116, and that view has bean followed by the Bombay High Court, and in Madras it has been specifically determined chat a suit for rent on a registered document falls within Article 116. Looking, therefore, at the rulings of the different Courts, it seems now difficult to come to any other conclusion than that arrived at by the Judge below. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
2. I concur in dismissing this appeal. I desire only to say that I have considerable doubt as to whether a suit for recovery of arrears of rent on an agreement in writing registered is a suit for compensation for breach of a contract within the meaning of Article 116 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act. If I were unfettered by authority I should have been inclined to hold that it does not, but that it falls within Article 110. Having regard, however, to the various rulings of the different High Courts as to the construction to be put upon Article 116, and as to the class of cases falling under it, I do not think I should be justified in, differing from the views expressed therein.