JUDGMENT Both, the trial Court and learned lower appellate Court have, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, held that the money sought to be recovered by filing this suit was paid by the appellants on 7.7.74 when they took the delivery of the consignment at Bilaspur by making payment of the money claimed. There is also no dispute about this. It is also the appellants' own case that they wrote a letter dated 10.10.77 to the respondent-Railways claiming the aforesaid amount and the respondents-Railways by their letter dated 18.11.77, disputed their liability to pay. It is, therefore, clear that though the payment of the-money sought to be recovered by filing this suit was made on 7.7.74, the respondents-Railways had disputed their liability to refund the same on 18.11.77. It is also not in dispute that if the cause of action arose on 7.7.74, the suit would be barred by limitation. Under the circumstances, the only question requiring consideration of this Court is whether the cause of action in favour of the appellants arose on 18.11. 77. Both, the trial Court and also the learned lower appellate Court have held that the period of limitation for filing the suit is three years. Learned trial Court has dismissed the suit applying Article 69 of the Limitation Act. According to the learned lower appellate Court, the proper Article would be Article 24 and not Article 69 of the said Act and on this basis the suit has been found to be barred by the limitation. There is no dispute that Article 24 is the Article to be applied in the instant case. Article 24 provides for three years' period for filing a suit for recovery of money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff but the starting point of limitation would be the date when the money is received by the defendant. This Article corresponds to Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1908. This Court in M/s Firm Mojiram Murarilal v. Municipal Committee, Bharatpur, 1969 MPLJ 1969 Note 74 has considered the entire case law on the subject by holding that the cause of action arises on the date when the plaintiff paid the money to the defendant. This case covers the matter in its entirity and there is, therefore, no reason why .it should not govern the disposal of this suit. This case covers the matter in its entirity and there is, therefore, no reason why .it should not govern the disposal of this suit. Learned lower appellate Court has also applied this provision to the instant case and reached the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. Nothing, whatsoever, has been brought to the notice of this Court to take any contrary view of the matter. Under the circumstances, the Courts below must be held to have rightly decided against the appellants. 1969 MPLJ Note 74 relied on. Appeal dismissed.