JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for compensation brought under section 146 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The plaintiff is a tenant of the first defendant, Raja Balwant Singh. The Raja caused the crops growing on the plaintiff's land to be distrained on the allegation that a sum of Rs. 223 was due to him for arrears of rent. The plaintiff brought a suit on the 2nd of May, 1906, under section 142 of the Act, to contest the distraint. That suit was decreed on the 2nd of August, 1906, the court holding that Rs. 86-12-0 only was due for arrears of rent. Thereupon the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted on the 31st of October, 1906. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 700 as compensation, but the court of first instance granted him a decree for Rs. 500. 2. This decree was set aside by the lower appellate court on several grounds, one of which was that the claim was barred by limitation. 3. We are of opinion that the decision of the court below as to limitation is correct. Under No. 6 of the 4th Schedule to the Tenancy Act the limitation for a suit for compensation for wrongful acts of a distrainer, brought under section 146, is three months from the date on which the right to sue accrued. We have therefore to see when the plaintiff's right to sue accrued. The present suit was brought under the second paragraph of section 146 on the ground that the distrained property was damaged and destroyed by reason of the defendant not having taken proper precautions for the keeping and preservation thereof. It appears that under section 143, security was furnished and the court made an order for the release of the property on the 2nd of May, 1906. On the 31st of May, 1906, the plaintiff made an application informing the court that all the property distrained had not been made over to the surety. Thereupon the court directed the Amin to submit an explanation, and the Amin sent a report stating that he had made over to the surety some more property on the 9th of June, 1906, and that the remainder of the property alleged to have been distrained was not forthcoming. 4. Thereupon the court directed the Amin to submit an explanation, and the Amin sent a report stating that he had made over to the surety some more property on the 9th of June, 1906, and that the remainder of the property alleged to have been distrained was not forthcoming. 4. It is thus manifest that the property in respect of which compensation is now claimed had been destroyed, if at all, prior to the 9th of June, 1906. It was when the plaintiff's property was lost, destroyed or damaged or he had knowledge of the loss, destruction or damage that the plaintiff's cause of action for bringing a suit under section 146 arose. This, as we have pointed out, took place sometime before the 9th of June, 1906, and that was the latest date on which it came to his knowledge that his crops had been lost, damaged or destroyed. His cause of action therefore accrued at least on the 9th of June, 1906, and as the suit was brought after there months from that date it was time-barred. On this bound the appeal fails. We dismiss it with costs.