Loftus Richard Tottenham and Banerjee, JJ.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant in a suitbrought against him by the plaintiff to recover arrears of salary. Thedefendant disputed the amount due. In his written statement he has set out anumber of items for which he claimed credit; and the total of which, ifallowed, would reduce the plaintiffs claim by Rs. 624 odd.

2. Both the Courts below decreed the plaintiffs claim infull, holding that none of the items set out by the defendant in his defencecame within the scope of Section 111 of the Code of Civil Procedure and couldnot be claimed as a set-off. Against this decision the present appeal has beenbrought. As regards most of the items set out by the defendant we concur withthe lower Court in thinking that they do not come within the scope of Section111, for most of them are not ascertained "amounts due by the plaintiff.It is true that they are all specifies amounts, but specified amounts are notnecessarily ascertained debts. As regards, however, one of the items, it wasnot pleaded as a set-off, but it was alleged to be payment on account of salaryfor which the suit is brought. The plaintiff has given credit for Rs. 204, ashaving been paid from time to time. The defendant pleaded a further payment ofRs. 130. That payment he did not allege to have been made personally to theplaintiff, but he alleged that the plaintiff had received it from the SteamerCompany whose servant the defendant was, and which was in a sense, therefore,employer of the plaintiff also, although it may be that the defendant hademployed the plaintiff without any reference to the Steamer Company. Be thatas it may, if the plaintiff actually received Rs. 130 from the Steamer Companyon account of monthly salary, that amount will have to be credited in thepresent suit. At all events the Court should have enquired into this item, andnot treated it as a claim to set-off, under Section Ill of the Code. Then asregards the other items set out in the first Courts judgment as claimed by thedefendant, although most of them may not, and do not, come within the scope ofSection 111, still we think, independently of that section, that the defendantwas entitled to bring them forward, and have an adjudication in respect of themin this suit. They were in the nature of cross-claims, and were so connectedwith the plaintiffs claim for salary as servant and agent of the defendant,that it would seem inequitable to compel the defendant to have recourse to aseparate suit to recover them. This has been laid down in Clark v. RuthnavalooChetti 2 Mad. H.C. 296. It was there said "that the right of set-off willbe found to exist not only in cases of mutual debts and credits, but also wherethe cross-demands arise out of one and the same transaction, or are soconnected in their nature and circumstances as to make it inequitable that theplaintiff should recover and the defendant be driven to a cross-suit."That decision was followed not only in later cases in the Madras Court, butalso followed in this Court, in a case of Bhagbat Panda v. Bamdeb Panda I.L.R.11 Cal 557 [LQ/CalHC/1885/68] ; and we think that the law there laid down is applicable to thepresent suit. The claims as made by the defendant arise for the most part outof the relation set up by the plaintiff in this suit, as a suit of master andservant, or principal and agent; and so far as these items are claimed inrespect of the alleged neglect or misconduct of the plaintiff in his capacityof servant of the defendant, we think that the defendant was entitled to havethe claims enquired into. Of course there may be, as regards each item, severalreasons why the defendant may fail in recovering, still those are matters whichwill have to be enquired into.

3. We therefore direct that the case be sent down to theCourt of First Instance to be re-tried.

4. Costs will abide the result.

.

Gopal Chunder Surmavs. G. Chisholm (14.06.1889 -CALHC)