Limitation for dissolved partnership accounts runs from dissolution; later fraud did not postpone time or save the suit.

A suit for rendition of accounts of a dissolved partnership firm must be filed within limitation counted from dissolution, including dissolution by death of a partner under Section 42(c) of the Partnership Act. Article 5 of the Limitation Act governed the claim, and Section 17 applied only where fraud concealed the right or title on which the suit was founded. On the stated facts, the plaintiff knew of the right to seek accounts; the alleged false assurance did not conceal that right, and a later fraudulent assurance could not stop limitation after time had begun to run. The suit was therefore time-barred and the decree in the plaintiff's favour was liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit for rendition of accounts of the dissolved partnership firm was barred by limitation, and whether the alleged fraud or false assurance by the defendants attracted the postponement of limitation under the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The earlier firm stood dissolved on the death of one partner under Section 42(c) of the Partnership Act, and the limitation for a suit for accounts of a dissolved firm ran from the date of dissolution under Article 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 17 of the Limitation Act applies only where fraud conceals the right or title on which the suit is founded. On the facts, the plaintiff was not kept unaware of her right to seek accounts; the alleged fraud, even if assumed, only induced her not to sue and did not conceal the accrual or existence of the right itself. A subsequent fraudulent assurance cannot stop time once limitation has begun to run.

Conclusion: The suit for accounts was time-barred, Section 17 did not save limitation, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was liable to be set aside.

---