JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan, J. - In this appeal filed by the defendant in a suit for arrears of rent u/s 108 ()5) of the Oudh Rent Act the only question which survives for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs, 188-1-10 by way of equitable set off. 2. The plaintiff sued the defendant an lambardar for her shire of the profits in respect of .1341 to 1343 Fasli and Kharif 1344 Fasli at the rate of Rs. 50 per annum. The defendant pleaded that in July, August and September 1933 be had laid Government revenue for the years 1339 and 1340 Fasli over and above his own share and the plaintiff who was a co-sharer of four annas in the village was liable to pay Rs;-188-1-10 to him. The defendant's case in the written statement was that after allowing for deductions due to him in respect of the Government revenue and other items he was entitled to a decree against the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court in modification of the decree of trial Court has decreed the suit for Rs. 140-9-9 on the basis of actual collections but has not allowed the claim for set off. There is no doubt that if this claim is allowed the plaintiff will not he entitled to any decree against the defendant. It may be mentioned that the decree on the basis of actual collections proceeded on the ground that there had been a custom in the village under which the co-sharers used to collect their own share of the rents and pay proportionate Government revenue directly. 3. It appears that the Government revenue for 1339 and 1340 Fasli fell into arrears and upon the suggestion of the Revenue authorities the defendant, who was appointed lambardar on the 13th August, 1932, paid the entire revenue and was allowed to collect rent from the tenants of the village to the extent of the revenue paid by him but no more. The Tehsildar's report shows that the co-sharers did not pay revenue and only Bs. 35 were paid by the plaintiff. In pursuance of this arrangement the defendant paid the revenue in the beginning of 1341 Fasli and collected rents in that year. There is nothing to show that the plaintiff was a party to this arrangement. The Tehsildar's report shows that the co-sharers did not pay revenue and only Bs. 35 were paid by the plaintiff. In pursuance of this arrangement the defendant paid the revenue in the beginning of 1341 Fasli and collected rents in that year. There is nothing to show that the plaintiff was a party to this arrangement. It is, however, not disputed that the plaintiff who originally used to pay the revenue of her share did not do so and that she did not collect the rents iu 1341 according to the old custom and practice. These circumstances in my opinion lead to a reasonable presumption tl at the plaintiff acquiesced in the management and hence did not collect the rents. The defendant did not sue the plaintiff for arrears of revenue presumably because he bad reimbursed himself out of the rents without any protest from the plaintiff. The defendant as a lambardar stood to the co-sharers in a position of fiduciary relationship and was accountable to them for collection of rents and on his part was entitled to be reimbursed for any excess payments which-he made in that capacity. It is uuetlai the revenue was not paid in 1339 and 1340 Fasli but it was paid in the beginning of 1341 Fasli soon after the defendant had been appointed lambardar. The plaintiff became a debtor of the defendant in respect of the Government revenue and the . defendant assumed the position of a debtor of the plaintiff in respect of the collections made by him in 1341. The two trans- actions viewed in their proper prospective are intimately associated with each other and it would be opposed to the principles of natural equity to drive the lambardar to a separate Mitt for payment of revenue and deprive him of the right to reimburse himself out of the Tents in his hands. The provisions of Order VIII rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which relate to a legal set off and require that an ascertained sum of money should be legally recoverable by the defendant from the plaintiff, do not apply to an equitable set off. The defendant's claim for recovery of revenue was time-barred at the time of the institution of the suit by the plaintiff. In Sheo Saran Singh v. Mohabir Pershad Shah (1905) 32 Cal. The defendant's claim for recovery of revenue was time-barred at the time of the institution of the suit by the plaintiff. In Sheo Saran Singh v. Mohabir Pershad Shah (1905) 32 Cal. 576 the usufructuary mortgagee was entitled to set off the surplus profits accumulating in his hands as claim for rents subsequently accruing due to him from the mortgagor in respect of a holding owned by the . latter and included in the mortgaged property notwithstanding that such rents were barred by limitation. This case was followed in Ramdhari Singh v. Permanand Singh (1916) 19 Cal. W.N. 1183 where u was held that a time-barred debt may be claimed by way of an equitable set off. This in turn was followed in Hart Attaint Sliaha Poddar v. Mohummad Esahak Mia (1936) 10 CW N 751. This last case was followed by a Bench of this Court in AIR 1943 17 (Oudh) . That was a case under the 0. P. Encumbered Estates Act. The mortgagee in breach of the terms of the mortgage bond had failed to pay a demand specified in the bond to the mortgagor's creditor. The creditor obtained a decree and brought the property of the mortgagor to sale. He then claimed damages by way of deduction out of the mortgage money for toss resulting from the sale of his property as an equitable set off. The claim was allowed. 4. As against this learned Counsel for the respondent has relied 011 R U M S T Vyravan Chatty v. Srimathi Deivasikamani Nataraja Desikar AIR 1917 Mad 258 where in unliquidated claim for damages pleaded by way of set off by the lessee against the lessor in a suit for rent was disallowed, as it was barred by limitation. The lessor claimed the rent for 1318 and 1319 Fasli and the lessee claimed set off in respect of the disturbances of possession in 1313 and 1314 Fasli. Wallis C. J. while, disallowing the claim on the ground of limitation observed : Cross-claims on account as between mortgagor and mortgagee, trustee and cestuique trust and the like, stand, on a different fooling and I do not wish my observation to be taken as applicable to such cases. 5. Wallis C. J. while, disallowing the claim on the ground of limitation observed : Cross-claims on account as between mortgagor and mortgagee, trustee and cestuique trust and the like, stand, on a different fooling and I do not wish my observation to be taken as applicable to such cases. 5. The other learned Judge Seshgiri Aiyir J. while holding that the provisions of Order VIII rule it read with Order XX rule 19 of the CPC appear to show that the claim for equitable set off should also be within time, observed as follows : An exception to this rule has been recognised in some cases; where there is a fiduciary relationship between the parties as in the case of cestuique trust, and there is accountability, even barred claims may be taken in passing the final accounts. 6. The learned Judge was, however, not prepared to extend the exception to suits between a lessor and a lessee. The present case is one in which the parties stood to each other in a fiduciary relationship, and the hmbardar was accountable to the co-sharers. 7. The decision in Hargovind v. Shri Krishnadas Narayandas Ladha A I R 1936 Nag 290 which followed the view taken in the above Madras case is distinguishable. The defendant in that case had lent money to the plaintiff on a promissory note and had allowed his claim to become time-barred. The learned Judge heW . there being no question of accounting between the parties, it would be inequitable to allow him lo evade the law of limitation. 8. The cases in Jitendra Nath Ray Vs. Jnanada Kanta Das Gupta, AIR 1936 Cal 277 and Bharta Vs. Chet Ram, AIR 1934 All 427 relate to a legal set off and not an equitable set off. 9. The case in Kallu Mai v. Partab Singh A I R 1926 Oudh 301 has no application. There the vendee brought a suit against the vendor for return of the purchase money after his dispossession by the vendor's relatives. The defendant claimed mesne profits by way of set off. It was held that the vendee by virtue of the sale got possession of the land and realised its proljjs and the vendor received the purchase money and had the use of it and under the circumstances the vendee was not liable to the vendor for the mesne profits. The defendant claimed mesne profits by way of set off. It was held that the vendee by virtue of the sale got possession of the land and realised its proljjs and the vendor received the purchase money and had the use of it and under the circumstances the vendee was not liable to the vendor for the mesne profits. It was further held that a claim for mesne profits might be made by the parties who had the sale set aside on the ground that it was void or voidable against him and not by the vendor or his legal representative. 10. I hold, therefore, that the appellant was entitled to an equitable set off. Accordingly I set aside the judgments and decrees of both the lower Courts and allow the appeal with costs throughout. The suit is dismissed.