Lord Normand - (1.) These are consolidated appeals from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras modifying a preliminary and a final decree of the Subordinate Court of Cocanada. The question for determination is whether or to what extent the Indian Limitation Act affects the plaintiffs' claim against the Maharaja of Pithapuram for payments of sums amounting to Rs. 7,38,000 received by him as rents from the zamindari estate known as Gollaprolu during the period from 12 January 1924, to 7 September 1935.
(2.) The facts so far as material to the issue are as follows. In 1923 there was pending a litigation between the Maharaja and the plaintiffs in the present suit in which the Maharaja claimed that he was the nearest reversioner entitled to succeed to the estate of Gollaprolu. The Maharaja held a decree pronounced in his favour by the District Judge of Rajahmundry but the present plaintiffs had appealed against it to the Madras High Court. While that appeal was pending, the Maharaja on 10 November 1923, applied to the Collector of Godavari to be recognized as the landholder of the estate for the purposes of the Madras Estates Land Act subject to the ultimate result of the litigation then pending. After sundry procedure not germane to the present issue the Collector on 12 January 1924, made an order under S. 3 (5), Madras Estates Land Act, by which he recognised the Maharaja as the landholder for the purposes of the Act. The Maharaja accordingly entered into possession of the estate and collected the rents and profits. The litigation pending between him and the present plaintiffs was protracted and was not finally brought to an end till the Order in Council of 15th July 1935, the effect of which was to find that the present plaintiffs were entitled to the estate. On 7th September 1935, the Collector of Godavari cancelled his previous order of 12 January 1924, and recognized the present plaintiffs as the landholders of the estate.
(3.) The plaintiffs brought the present suit in October 1935, for recovery of the rents and profits received by the Maharaja during the period of his possession and management of the estate. The Maharaja pleaded that he had been in wrongful possession of the estate during the whole period and that the suit for mesne profits for more than three years from the date when the profits were received was barred by the Limitation Act, Sch. 1, Art. 109. The trial Judge held that the Maharaja's possession of the estate under the order of 12 January 1912, had not been wrongful, and that he had collected the rents and profits as a quasi - trustee for the benefit of the plaintiffs and was bound to account to them for the rents and profits received in the full period of his possession. By a preliminary decree he directed the Maharaja to render accounts; and after the accounts were taken he granted a final decree on 25 March 1938. Appeals were preferred to the High Court which, agreeing with the trial Judge, held that the Maharaja's possession had not been wrongful and consequently that Art. 109 of Sch. 1, Limitation Act did not apply. But, differing from the trial Judge, the High Court held, that a right to sue the Maharajah had accrued to the plaintiffs each time he had received the rents and profits. Accordingly the High Court disallowed the plaintiffs' claim to recover rents and profits received more than six years before the commencement of the suit, as being barred by Art. 120, Sch. 1, Limitation Act. In the argument addressed to their Lordships the plaintiffs supported the finding of the trial Judge and the High Court that the Maharaja's possession and his collection of rents and profits had not been wrongful, and therefore that the present suit was not within the terms of Art. 109, Limitation Act, a suit "for the profits of immoveable property belonging to the plaintiffs which have been wrongfully received by the defendant." They also maintained that no right to sue accrued while the order of 12 January 1924, was in force, and therefore that the six years limitation provided by Art. 120, Sch. 1, Limitation Act barred no part of their claim. The Maharaja cross - appealed and relied on Art. 109 and the three years' limitation therein provided. Alternatively he maintained that the judgment of the High Court should be affirmed.;