Limitation for tort claims turns on actionable loss, not just the initial wrongful act in negligence and public duty cases.

Article 36 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was not treated as exhaustive of all tortious claims; the discussion distinguishes negligent acts, defective planning, and breach of public duty from the narrower class of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance. It also explains that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was not displaced by Modern Cultivators for such claims. On limitation, the operative date is framed by accrual of actionable loss, not merely the initial wrongful act, so time does not run before damage is suffered or the claim is refused after assessment. The claim was therefore treated as falling outside the narrow limitation bar.

---

---

Issues: Whether Article 36 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was exhaustive of all tortious claims and applicable to a claim for damages founded on negligence and breach of public duty; and when limitation began to run on the facts of the case.

Analysis: Article 36, though residuary within its own field, was not intended to exhaust every form of tort. The expressions malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance did not cover every negligent or wrongful act causing damage, especially where the liability arose from defective planning, failure of public duty and broader tortious responsibility. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was not modified by the earlier decision in Modern Cultivators so as to make it inapplicable here. On limitation, the words "when the malfeasance, misfeasance or non-feasance takes place" could not be read in a manner that would defeat a claim before damage was suffered or before the claim was rejected after assessment. In the circumstances, the operative date for limitation was not the initial construction activity alone, but the later refusal to compensate the assessed loss.

Conclusion: Article 36 was not exhaustive of all torts, Article 120 applied to the claim, and the suit was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appellant's claim for damages succeeded, the dismissal of the suit was set aside, and decree was granted for the assessed compensation with costs and interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A residuary limitation provision framed in terms of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance does not exhaust all tortious claims, and where damage arises from negligence, defective public duty, or analogous tortious wrongdoing, limitation must be construed with reference to the accrual of actionable loss rather than a narrow formal classification of the wrong.

---