JUDGMENT The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that tyres in question admittedly belonged to M/s. Vikrant Tyres Limited, Indore and hence they were the owner& thereof. It is submitted that since the suit has not been brought by the said company, the appellant could not recover the price of those tyres. Evidence on record indicates that the respondent company is a transporter of goods and had received tyres from M/s. Vikrant Tyres Limited, Indore by issuing receipts (Ex. P/l to Ex. P/7). This would, therefore, indicate that M/s. Vikrant Tyres Limited were the original owners of the tyres and had handed over the same to the respondent for transporting these typres to Satna and delivery on production of receipts to the appellant. Legal status of the respondent Company was that of a bailee. The respondent company were in possession of the tyres as trustees thereof on behalf of the original owner. Their liability to the original owner remains because of the aforesaid legal relationship between them. In such a situation, the suit, as filed by the respondent, would not be by a stranger having no interest. The liability of the respondent company to the original owner would subsist as long as the goods are not delivered to the cosignee, on production of receipts or return to the consigner In this view of the matter, it is not possible to accept that the respondent had no locus standi to bring the present suit. It is not the appellant's case that he had made payment to M/s. Vikrant Tyres Limited or the said Company was making any claim on him in relation to those tyres. In this view of the matter, the objection of the appellant was rightly rejected. As regard suit having become barred by limitation, para 9 of the written statement clearly mentions that it has become barred only in relation to 6 tyres covered by receipt Nos. 72267 dated 2.7.80 & 72291 dated 21.7.80. All payments admittedly made by the appellants were subsequent to the aforesaid two dates. The appellant does not state that while making the payment to the respondent, he made any specific request for its appropriation. Such a claim is made for the first time by way of written statement. the discount to which he is entitled. All payments admittedly made by the appellants were subsequent to the aforesaid two dates. The appellant does not state that while making the payment to the respondent, he made any specific request for its appropriation. Such a claim is made for the first time by way of written statement. the discount to which he is entitled. In such a situation, the period of limitation cannot be counted from the date of delivery, but would be counted from the date of the payment. Admittedly, the suit would not be barred if the period of limitation is reckoned with from that at Since such a request should have been made to the respondent at the time of payment so as to create a right in favour of the appellant and it has not been made, the period of limitation would be taken to be running from the date the difference arose between the parties. It is a case where the appellant has made payment and has refused to make the payment of balance on the ground that it represented e. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Judge committed no illegality in rejecting the objection and holding the claim within time. Appeal dismissed.