1. The question which arises in the second appeal is what,is the period of limitation in a suit for accounts when there has been anagreement to furnish accounts year by year and a demand which has beenneglected year by year, to so render the accounts. The contention of theappellant is that whether article 89 applies or article 115 applies, it isimmaterial inasmuch as in both the cases, there is a successive breach of theagreement or contract. The various cases which have decided that in an ordinarysuit for accounts where there is no contract as to annual rendering ofaccounts, article 89 applies, which have been carried so far in the most recentcase of Hafiziuddin Mondol v. Jadu Nath Saha : 12 C.W.N. 820: 1 C.L.J. 279, 35 C. 298, as to suggest that that article will even oust theeffect of article 116, do not apply to this case The cases which are in someway analogs to this are those of Mati Lal Bose v. Amin Chand Chattopadhya 1C.L.J. 211, and Hart Narain Ghose v. The Administrator-General of Bengal 3C.L.R. 446. "Where there is a contract to render accounts year by year, ifsuch a contract is registered, it has been held in Mati Lal Bose v. Amin ChandChattopadhya 1 C.L.J. 211, that article 116 would apply and if the contract isunregistered, article 115, and in the same way where there is a demand for anaccount and a refusal, it has been held that the cause of action accrues fromthe time of refusal and not from the date when the agency terminates. But theruling in Hari Narain Ghose v. The Administrator-General of Bengal 3 C.L.R.446, is clear authority for the proposition that the neglect to comply with thedemand to render accounts is tantamount to a refusal within the meaning of thearticle of the then Limitation Act which corresponds to article 89 of the presentAct. That being so we are of opinion that the Munsif is perfectly right insaying that it" does not matter which article is applied. Whether article89 applies or 115 applies there having been successive breach year by year, thelimitation dates from each breach. The plaintiff brought the suit within threeyears of the last breach and he is, therefore, entitled to accounts for oneyear.

2. It is argued that the decision in the case of Har NarainGhose v. The Administrator-General of Bengal 3 C.L.R. 446, is inequitable andit operates harshly upon persons who have agents in the muffassil. But we findthat if a man employs another under an express contract that he will furnishaccounts year by year and that the agent year by year promises to supply such.accounts and year by year neglects to do so, the plaintiff has the fullestwarning that his agent is not trustworthy and he has only himself to blame ifhe loses his money.

3. We therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of theSubordinate Judge and restore those of the Munsif with costs to the appellantin all the Courts.

.

Easin Sarkar vs.Barada Kishore Acharyya Chowdhury(23.03.1909 - CALHC)