Limitation under the residuary article applied to an equitable share claim; revision was refused as no interference was warranted.

Article 62 of the Limitation Act applies only where the defendant receives money for the plaintiff's use; where the payment is made to the defendant as money due to him and the claim is only an equitable claim to a share, Article 62 does not govern. The suit therefore fell under the residuary limitation article and was within time. As to revision under Section 115 CPC, the court treated it as unnecessary to decide the full scope of revisional jurisdiction because, even if maintainable, no interference was called for where the limitation ruling was correct in law. The revision application failed and the plaintiff's suit was held not barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision application was maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (ii) whether the suit for recovery of the plaintiff's share was governed by Article 62 or Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Issue (i): Whether the revision application was maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The question of maintainability under Section 115 was considered in the light of the contention that an erroneous decision on limitation could be corrected in revision. The Court found it unnecessary to finally pronounce on the scope of revisional jurisdiction, because even assuming jurisdiction existed, no interference was warranted if the decision on limitation was correct in law.

Conclusion: The revision objection did not assist the applicant and no interference in revision was called for.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit for recovery of the plaintiff's share was governed by Article 62 or Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Analysis: Article 62 was treated as applicable only where money is received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use. On the facts, the amount was paid to the defendant by the State as money due to him, and neither the payer nor the payee treated any part of it as paid on behalf of the plaintiff. The claim was therefore not contractual in character but was an equitable claim to a share of the money. In such a situation, Article 62 was held inapplicable and Article 120 governed the suit.

Conclusion: The suit was within time under Article 120 and was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The application failed and the rule was discharged with costs, the plaintiff's suit being held to be in time under the residuary limitation article.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 62 applies only where the defendant receives money for the plaintiff's use, whereas a purely equitable claim to a share of money paid to another on the footing of his own entitlement falls under the residuary limitation article.

---