9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entrustment of gold to the defendants. 2. Execution of the tehrir (amanati chithi). 3. Plaintiff's acquisition of the gold. 4. Conduct of the parties post-entrustment. 5. Bar of limitation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entrustment of Gold to the Defendants: The plaintiff alleged that on 25.12.1957, the defendants received from him gold weighing 250 tolas as a trust deposit (amanat) and agreed to carry it to Bombay at their own risk, delivering it against a payment of Rs. 300/- as remuneration. The defendants denied receiving any gold or undertaking such work. The Trial Court and the High Court recorded concurrent findings on the entrustment of gold to the defendants. However, the Supreme Court found serious infirmities in these findings and scrutinized the evidence. 2. Execution of the Tehrir (Amanati Chithi): The plaintiff produced a tehrir purportedly executed by the defendants, acknowledging the receipt of the gold. The defendants denied executing this document. The plaintiff's witnesses, including the writer and attestors of the tehrir, testified to its authenticity. However, a handwriting expert (D.W. 8) opined that the document did not contain signatures comparable with the admitted signatures of the defendants. The Supreme Court found the tehrir to be unusual and not credible, given the circumstances and the defendants' denial. 3. Plaintiff's Acquisition of the Gold: The plaintiff claimed he purchased the gold from Motilal Brij Bhusan & Co. of Bombay and another 100 tolas from Maganlal Manakmal of Bombay. He stated that he carried Rs. 40,000/- from Barmer to Bombay for the purchase, which was part of the earnings of his father, uncle, and himself. However, he did not maintain account books or remember the exact amount paid. The Supreme Court found the plaintiff's story implausible, especially since his father's house was mortgaged for a significant loan, contradicting the claim of having such a large sum at home. 4. Conduct of the Parties Post-Entrustment: The plaintiff alleged that the defendants neither carried the gold to Bombay nor returned it. He did not report the matter to the police, claiming that the defendants assured him of returning the gold. The plaintiff issued a notice of demand nearly two and a half years later, which the defendants promptly denied. The Supreme Court found the plaintiff's delay in taking legal action and the lack of a criminal complaint against the defendants to be unexplained and suspicious. 5. Bar of Limitation: The defendants pleaded that the suit was barred by time based on Articles 30 and 31 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. However, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to address this issue, given their conclusion on the merits of the case. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found the plaintiff's story of entrustment of 250 tolas of gold to the defendants to be baseless and artificial. The evidence regarding the purchase of the gold and the execution of the tehrir was not credible. The Court concluded that neither the Trial Court nor the High Court had given due consideration to the material aspects of the case, leading to vitiated judgments. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the High Court and the Trial Court, and dismissed the suit, with each party bearing their own costs.
|
