Judgement Three Consolidated Appeals from three decrees of the High Court which were passed in two suits. The first decree was dated March 9, 1897, and dismissed the appellants suit, thereby in part reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, dated September 15, 1893, which had decreed the appellants suit against Kurshed Ali Khan and dismissed it as against Muzaffar Ali Khan. The second decree of the High Court was on the same date and to the like effect, being a dismissal of the appellants cross-appeal against that part of the decree of the Court below which had dismissed his suit against Muzaffar Ali Khan. The third decree was also on the same date, and decreed Kurshed Ali Khans suit against the appellant in the sum of Rs.25,075.11.2 1/2, with interest, thereby reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, dated September 16, 1893, which had dismissed the same. The two suits in which the said three decrees were made were cross-suits between two Mahomedan brothers, Asghar Ali and Kurshed Ali, relating to the same transactions. The first suit was brought on December 22, 1885, by Asghar Ali to recover Rs.37,400 and interest. Kurshed Ali pleaded a set-off to the extent of Rs.108,040. The plaintiff replied that all accounts had been settled in March, 1885, shewing Rs.37,400 due by the defendant. The second was brought by Kurshed Ali on November 9, 1888, for an account and payment of the balance. To this suit Asghar Ali pleaded limitation and a denial of liability to account. Of the numerous decrees passed in these two suits and in a third suit between the same and other parties not the subject of this appeal, that of the High Court, dated April 24, 1896, alone dealt with the issue as to the genuineness of an account stated between the brothers in March, 1885. During the ten years previous thereto the judgments in the cases dealt with limitation and the competence to sue and set off. In 1896, on an issue admitted to be vital, the High Court held that the two documents which contained a stated account were a forgery, and remanded the suits for an account to be taken as prayed by Kurshed Ali, with the result that Rs.25,075 was found due by Asghar Ali mostly by concurrent findings of fact. In 1896, on an issue admitted to be vital, the High Court held that the two documents which contained a stated account were a forgery, and remanded the suits for an account to be taken as prayed by Kurshed Ali, with the result that Rs.25,075 was found due by Asghar Ali mostly by concurrent findings of fact. The result of this taking of accounts by the Court below was not impugned by Asghar Ali. Mayne, for the appellant, contended that the finding of the High Court in April, 1896, that the statement of account relied on was a forgery was wrong, and should be reversed. The High Court dealt with the positive evidence as to the transaction itself and the genuineness of the documents relied on in a most cursory manner, and disregarded an immense body of disinterested and credible evidence in its favour on reasoning which was mostly unsound. The account stated should have been upheld, and Kurshed Alis cross-suit for an account dismissed with all the proceedings directed to the taking of that account. Further, the suit for an account was barred by limitation see Act XV. of 1877, Sched. II. arts. 61, 89, 48,133. If a three years period was allowed, the appellants agency terminated in May, 1884, when there existed a state of circumstances inconsistent with the continuance of the agency. The letter of November 9, 1885, was not an admis ;on, for it was not proved to be genuine, and even if were genuine then, as the suit was not brought till November 9, 1888, it was not in time, being one day too late. Cowell and Colvin, for the respondents, contended that the High Court was right in rejecting the alleged statement of account as forged. The large body of evidence relied upon by the other side was displaced by the total impossibility of Kurshed Ali ever having signed the list of items No. 160. For instance, he is represented as admitting a receipt of Rs.6000 from Husain Ali Khan involving a liability to Asghar in respect of Rs.3000. Immediately on the list being brought to his notice he sued Husains representatives and Asghar for pay ment from one or other of his Rs.3000. For instance, he is represented as admitting a receipt of Rs.6000 from Husain Ali Khan involving a liability to Asghar in respect of Rs.3000. Immediately on the list being brought to his notice he sued Husains representatives and Asghar for pay ment from one or other of his Rs.3000. The evidence was conclusive that the debtor had paid the whole of his debt to Asghar, and there were concurrent findings to that effect in that suit, and also in this suit that nothing was due by Kurshed to Asghar in respect of that Rs.6000. It was incredible that Kurshed should have signed an admission to the contrary. The other items were examined with a similar result. As regards limitation, art. 89 applied. The evidence shewed that Asghar admitted an agency later than May, 1884, and there was no evidence of its termination before his suit was filed on December 22, 1885. Otherwise the rukka of November 9, 1885, was an acknowledgment, and s. 12 of Act XV. of 1877 shews that the suit was not one day too late. Mayne replied. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD ROBERTSON. This litigation between the appellant and the respondents has lasted for fifteen years; it has increased in volume and complexity as it proceeded in the devious courses recorded in the printed book; and yet the essential facts are not of unusual complication. It would be unprofitable to recite all the stories, true and false, which have gathered round the transactions of the two brothers, Kurshed and Asghar, and it is only necessary at first to ascertain what were the relations of the one to the other out of which the disputes have arisen. First of all then, in 1875, the uncle of the two brothers, Husain Ali Khan, paid to the elder of them, Kurshed, the sum of Rs.74,800, being the amount due to the two as their share of the profits of estates which their father and Husain, and afterwards the two brothers and Husain, had held jointly. From 1875 there was separation between Husain and the two brothers; but the two brothers remained joint in all their estate until 1882, and in business until the present dispute arose. From 1875 there was separation between Husain and the two brothers; but the two brothers remained joint in all their estate until 1882, and in business until the present dispute arose. Before speaking, however, of the relations between the two brothers as to estate and business generally, it is convenient to complete the narrative of the Rs.74,800 which came from the uncle into the hands of Kurshed. In a case abounding in mutual accusations of forgery and perjury, the main facts about this money are undisputed. That the greater part of it, namely, Rs.60,000, was deposited in the Bank of Upper India, and the rest, namely, Rs.14,800, with two native firms of bankers at Meerut, is certain. The sequel as to the Rs.60,000 needs only to be told briefly in order to its being dismissed from further consideration. It was given by Kurshed to the other respondent, Muzaffar, his son; but as Kurshed admits his liability to account for it, the whole history of Muzaffars dealings with it has no further relation to the present dispute. There was a dispute as to what became of the Rs.14,800, but this is the sole controversial survival of the subject-matter of the first suit, namely, the Rs.74,800 which came to the brothers from their uncle Husain, and it is ultimately dealt with in the account. Turning now to the general relations between the two brothers, the facts are simple. They were joint in estate, as has already been said; they owned considerable property in the district of Muzaffarnagar; both were in Government service, employed in different districts, and one was at home at one time and another at another. It resulted from these mutual relations and similar engagements that the one acted for the other in the receipt of the profits of their estate, and, when necessary for more important matters, powers of attorney were granted by the one to the other. This is common ground, and the fierce controversies in this suit are as to which brother in certain specified cases collected moneys belonging to both. In 1882 the greater part of the landed property belonging to them was divided between them; but they continued joint in other matters; and the growing distrust between the two did not produce an actual rupture until the litigation began in 1885. In 1882 the greater part of the landed property belonging to them was divided between them; but they continued joint in other matters; and the growing distrust between the two did not produce an actual rupture until the litigation began in 1885. In this state of facts the resulting liability of either party to account for his receipts is clear; and, given appropriate action or actions to enforce those liabilities, then the questions are (1.) is either claim to account barred by limitation ; (2.) or by settlement of accounts ; and, if not, (3.) what is the state of accouts ? It will be found that in whatever other social or legal duty the parties have come short, they have not failed to sue enough actions to determine their rights, and some of the questions which were agitated as a defence to the first action are entirely superseded by the ample means ultimately afforded the Courts for doing complete justice. The first suit (No. 189 of 1885) related to the Rs.74,800 which Kurshed received from Husain. The plaint was filed by Asghar on December 22, 1885, and asked for a decree against Kurshed for Rs.37,400, being half of the Rs.74,800, with interest, other decrees being asked to the effect of tracing and attaching the money in the form in which it had been invested by Kursheds son, Muzaffar, who was made a defendant. For reasons already indicated, it is only necessary to follow the progress of the litigation between the two brothers, for the claim against Muzaffar comes to nothing. Kursheds written statement presented a perfectly definite theory of the case. So far from his being indebted to Asghar, Asghar was largely indebted to him, to the amount of more than a lac of rupees, the details of which were given in an account produced. This being so, the Rs.74,800 which came from Husain had, to the extent of Rs.60,000, been justly appropriated by Kurshed, and, as it happened, had been given to Muzaffar. The rest (Es.14,800) had been spent by Asghar and Kurshed jointly. On this statement of facts, besides limitation, Kurshed pleaded tha« the brothers had been joint owners, that there must be a general account between them as partners, and that no action could lie for what was only one item in an account. The rest (Es.14,800) had been spent by Asghar and Kurshed jointly. On this statement of facts, besides limitation, Kurshed pleaded tha« the brothers had been joint owners, that there must be a general account between them as partners, and that no action could lie for what was only one item in an account. On this last point it is sufficient to say that, whether good or bad, it is superseded by the fact that a cross-action was brought by Kurshed to enforce the claims originally stated in support of his defence. A minor incident of this defence must here be noted, as it bears very directly on one of the keenest controversies in the case. With Kursheds written statement he produced a letter dated November 9, 1885, written by himself, and expressing a wish for a prompt settlement of accounts, and having indorsed on it a reply by Asghar acquiescing, and saying, " Please settle the account. I am responsible for what may be found due by me." This document was filed on February 23, 1886, and of its relevancy in support of the claim for an account there can be no doubt. The Court called on the appellant (plaintiff) for a replication, and on March 31, 1886, he filed a written statement in which (inter alia) he denied the partnership and the receipt of any of the Rs.14,800, " does not accept the correctness of the defendants allegations (a) that the plaintiff received Rs.108,040 from the defendant in accordance with the inclosed list," and (after other non-admissions) the replication proceeded — " 6. The fact is this, that all the accounts were settled between the parties subject to the qualifications and statements contained in the plaint after inspecting and examining the siahas and registers of account (which the defendant has refused to produce on the plaintiffs application) as detailed in the list signed by the parties annexed to the written statement, and that the sums due by either party were set off, and that the defendant executed the inclosed note of hand in favour of the plaintiff as a memo, to secure the above-mentioned item. The present allegations of the defendant, after such clear and distinct proceeding, are very surprising." Along with this replication, i.e., on March 31, 1886, was produced the following letter— " My dear brother, dearer than life, Saiyed Asghar Ali. May he live long ! The present allegations of the defendant, after such clear and distinct proceeding, are very surprising." Along with this replication, i.e., on March 31, 1886, was produced the following letter— " My dear brother, dearer than life, Saiyed Asghar Ali. May he live long ! " With prayers for your long life, I inform you that whatever account was between you and me has been settled, i.e., I have received the entire amount due, and have understood my private account, the account of my son Muzaffar, the joint account and the account of the siaha deeds, &c. The whole of the aforesaid account with the exception of the joint money amounting to Rs.74,800, received on 8th June, 1875, and deposited in the bank and credited with mahajans, and the deed of Ganga Charan has been settled. Nothing has remained unpaid. No. 160.—List of Items realized by Saiyed Khurshed Ali Khan and Saiyed Asghar Ali Khan, which were allowed Credit for at the Time of the Private Adjustment. Receipts on account of Items due to Saiyed Khushed Ali Receipts account of Items due to Saiyed Khan by Saiyed Asghar Ali Khan on Private Account. Asghar Ali Khan by Saiyed Khushed Ali Khan on Private account. Rs. A. P. Rs. A. P On account of the decree passed against 9,743 0 0 On account of the price of the 3,000 0 0 Musammat Jajbi Begam, wife of Enayet house, situate in Meerut. Out Husain, rai’s of Kwol (?) of the Rs. 6000 Saiyed Khushad ali Khan received from Saiyed Husain Ali Khan. On account of bond executed by Raja Raza 10,500 0 0 Out of Rs. 7374 on account of 3,687, 0 0 Ali, ria’s of Bundora. the bond executed by Saiyed Ewaz Ali, mukhtaram of the parties (Rs. 3687) were paid to Lala Harsahal Mal, banker of Meerut. On account of the sale deed of Nagla, &c. 1,200 0 0 2,687 0 0 On 4th April, 1881 received executed by Raja Raza Ali. (Rs. 2847, 12) Out of Rs. 5694.8 on account of the proportionate balance of the judgment debt, due by saiyed Wazarat Husain. On account of the receipt from the shop of 11,025 0 0 4,673 1 3 On 4th April, 1881, Saiyed Bansidhar and Sheo parshed bankers of Khushad Ali Khan received Meerut. Out of Rs. 22,110 after deducting (money) on account of the Rs. 5694.8 on account of the proportionate balance of the judgment debt, due by saiyed Wazarat Husain. On account of the receipt from the shop of 11,025 0 0 4,673 1 3 On 4th April, 1881, Saiyed Bansidhar and Sheo parshed bankers of Khushad Ali Khan received Meerut. Out of Rs. 22,110 after deducting (money) on account of the Rs. 30 which were paid for the Umballa judgment debt due by journey under the account of the said Basharat Husain. Out of it Rs. bankers. 10,000 was credited to the shop of Bansidhar, Sheo Parshed. A moiety of Rs. 9346.2.3 w10On account of the profits of the villages 1,799 8 9 On account of bond executed 20,000 0 0 for 1283 Fasil by Nawab Azmat ali Khan, rais’ of Karnal. Total 34,268 0 1 Total 34,207 13 0 Khan, defendant, as to misjoinder of claims and parties is correct ? " 2. What were the relative positions of the parties when the money was drawn from Husaid Ali Khan and deposited at another place, and is any portion of claim affected by time ? "3. Whether the parties were partners and whether a settle ment was made as to the item objected to, or a full adjustment of the former accounts had been made under the rukka, dated 13th March, 1885, referred to by the plaintiff? "4. Whether the item in question was deposited in the Meerut Bank in the names of the parties or in the name of defendant No. 1, whether the plaintiff was a sharer and entitled to the extent of one-half of it, or with reference to the account produced by defendant No. 1 nothing was due to the plaintiff out of the aforesaid item, and whether the said deposit item was drawn and transferred mala fide and secretly, or with the knowledge of the plaintiff ? " 5. Whether the item of Rs.14,800 held in deposit by the firms was drawn by the parties or by the defendant alone ? 6. Whether the defendant can, under s. Ill, claim a set-off of the items set up by him in the plaintiffs account, and whether the items alleged by the defendant are also affected by time ? "7. Whether the item of Rs.14,800 held in deposit by the firms was drawn by the parties or by the defendant alone ? 6. Whether the defendant can, under s. Ill, claim a set-off of the items set up by him in the plaintiffs account, and whether the items alleged by the defendant are also affected by time ? "7. Whether the plaintiff has, as alleged by him, a right for hypothecation as to the property mortgaged by Chaudhri Shere Singh and others on account of the money due to him, and whether the mortgage was taken for this very money ? " 8. Whether the claim for interest is correct according to practice ? 9. What decision should be made as regards the defendants application for costs? " The defendant being called on to admit or deny certain documents, declared the rukka of March 13 and the " list of items " to be fabricated. In like manner the plaintiff put among the documents not admitted by him the rukka of November 9, 1885, with reply. On November 9, 1888, a cross-action (No. 211) was brought by the respondent Kurshed against the appellant. It claimed rendition of accounts and payments of Rs.74,030. For practical purposes the state of accounts upon which this sum was brought out was the same as that set out in the defence to the suit of the appellant. This action merely restated the controversy between the parties in another form, and it is only necessary to note that the appellant in defence pleaded limitation. Another suit was brought by the appellant against the respondents, but it is unnecessary to deduce the procedure. The evidence taken was made to apply to all three suits, and the suits were kept together in the subsequent procedure. The appeals ultimately taken have been consolidated. It will simplify the narrative if in the meantime the original action be mainly attended to. Evidence was taken before the Subordinate Judge, and many witnesses were examined whose credibility has been vehemently impugned. It was not until September 15, 1890, that the Subordinate Judge pronounced his first judgment, and by it he dismissed the suit (189) on the ground of limitation. Evidence was taken before the Subordinate Judge, and many witnesses were examined whose credibility has been vehemently impugned. It was not until September 15, 1890, that the Subordinate Judge pronounced his first judgment, and by it he dismissed the suit (189) on the ground of limitation. Against this the appellant (plaintiff) appealed to the High Court, and on January 16, 1893, the High Court set aside the decree and remanded the case under s. 562 of the Civil Procedure Code to be tried promptly on the merits and according to law. On September 15, 1893, the Subordinate Judge decided in favour of the appellant for the full amount of his claim as against Kurshed, but dismissed the suit as against Muzaffar. On appeal, the High Court, on April 24, 1896, referred the case to the Lower Court for the purpose of finding which, if any, of the items set forth in the list appended to the written statement filed by Kurshed are due to him by Asghar. They added " Such finding will be irrespective of any plea of limitation that may be raised on behalf of Asghar Ali." Their Lordships in passing must observe that while in the present instance it may not have led to miscarriage, this was not the proper order to be pronounced, and it was irregular to take the account irrespective of the plea of limitation. The High Court, however, did much more than appears from the mere terms of this remand; for by their judgment, leading up to the remand, they decided adversely to the appellant the most important question in the case—namely, the alleged settlement of accounts in March, 1885. They held on the evidence that no settlement had taken place, and they reached this result by holding that the ascertained facts about certain items of the list or state (set out above) on which the settlement was said to have proceeded made it incredible that the settlement took place. The appellant with some plausibility argued that the High Court has attached less importance to the positive evidence of the settlement than to antecedent improbabilities arising out of complicated transactions. The appellant with some plausibility argued that the High Court has attached less importance to the positive evidence of the settlement than to antecedent improbabilities arising out of complicated transactions. He points to the substantial body of evidence of persons apparently of good repute who say they were present at the settlement, and who depone to the writing and signature of the rukka, and he comments on the evidence being all one way as to the resemblance of the disputed writing to the undisputed signatures of Kurshed. He has examined with great elaboration the evidence bearing on the questions as to which of the disputed documents were forged and which of the witnesses are perjured, and whether an alibi has been made out by Kurshed. After very careful consideration, their Lordships have come to the conclusion that the High Court was justified in rejecting the rukka on the grounds which are stated in their judgment. They consider the evidence as to certain of the items in the state to be conclusive to the contrary of what is set out in the list, and to be inconsistent with the existence of the alleged settlement. It is, in their judgment, less credible that Kurshed should have agreed to an acknowledgment to the direct contrary of known and recent facts of capital importance than that the documents are fabricated, and it has to be remembered that the opposite theory involves the believing a similar amount of fabrication and perjury to have taken place on the other side about the document of November 9, 1885. Their Lordships the more readily adopt the conclusion thus stated when they remember that the rukka and list of March, 1885, were first heard of after the production by Kurshed of the rukka of November, 1885, in support of his counter-claim. For while it is true that in strictness they were not necessary to the plaint and appropriately supported the replication, yet it cannot escape notice that if they had been in existence they would inevitably have been in the mind of the plaintiff, and would naturally have formed the starting-point of the narrative of his plaint, and the subsequent procedure before the Subordinate Judge indicates a similar lack of confidence by the appellant in a controversial weapon which, if authentic, was conclusive. There remains the question whether Kursheds claim is barred by the Limitation Act. There remains the question whether Kursheds claim is barred by the Limitation Act. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit as time-barred; but the High Court, on March 9, 1897, reversed this decree, and gave decree for Rs.25,075 with interest. The question of limitation does not present much difficulty. Given the relations (which have been already stated) between these two brothers as regards their joint property, and it is apparent that they were agents the one of the other in dealing with the joint estate. Their Lordships are of opinion that the 89th article of the 2nd schedule of the Limitation Act, 1877, applies, for they hold the words "movable property" to include money. The evidence of Asghar shews that the relation of agency continued down to the institution of the suit, and accordingly the plea of limitation fails. In this View it is unnecessary to rely on the acknowledgment of November, 1885, or to consider the attempt to read the date as being in fact 1884 instead of 1885. The sequel of the suit after this judgment of the High Court shewed that the question of accounts was little controverted, and their Lordships were not asked to consider it. The result of the whole matter is that Kurshed is entitled to what has been awarded him, and that Asghar fails in his suits. The several actions have been disposed of by the High Court in the appropriate manner. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeals ought to be dismissed; and the appellant will pay the costs of the consolidated appeals.