1933 (8) TMI 4 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved: Joint family property, securities as trust, limitation period, applicability of Section 10 and Article 145 of the Limitation Act, nature of bailment, and suit against heirs of depositary.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Joint Family Property and Securities as Trust:
The case involves three brothers, Rajendra, Debendra, and Gobendra, who lived as a joint family and owned Government Promissory (G.P.) notes worth Rs. 33,000. Gobendra used Rs. 20,000 of these notes as securities for his service with the Burdwan Raj. After partitioning their properties in 1905, each brother, or Rajendra's sons, received G.P. notes worth Rs. 11,000. However, Debendra's share remained with the Burdwan Raj as part of the security. Gobendra retired in 1912 and died in 1914, but the notes were not returned. The plaintiffs, heirs of Debendra, sought to recover these notes or their value with interest.

2. Limitation Period:
The primary contention was whether the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs argued that the case falls under Section 10 or Article 145 of the Limitation Act, which would exclude the limitation period. The defendants contended that neither Section 10 nor Article 145 applied and that Article 49, which prescribes a shorter limitation period, should govern the case.

3. Applicability of Section 10 of the Limitation Act:
Section 10 pertains to property vested in trust for a specific purpose. The Subordinate Judge inferred an express trust from the circumstances, stating that the G.P. notes were held as security for Gobendra's service, making him a trustee for this purpose. However, the court concluded that the trust's specific purpose was completed when the notes served as security, and the suit was not for restoring the notes to that trust. Thus, Section 10 did not apply.

4. Applicability of Article 145 of the Limitation Act:
Article 145 relates to suits against depositaries. The court considered whether the G.P. notes were deposited with Gobendra. The nature of the transaction was viewed as a deposit, with the notes intended to remain intact with the Burdwan Raj. Despite arguments that Article 145 applies only to specific bailments, the court held that the broader meaning of deposit includes the present case. The court also addressed whether the suit could be maintained against the heirs of the depositary, concluding that the heirs could be considered depositaries, and thus, Article 145 applied.

5. Nature of Bailment and Suit Against Heirs:
The court discussed the nature of bailment, distinguishing between depositum (specific thing to be kept) and mutuum (money or things to be used and returned in kind). The court rejected the argument that the fiduciary relationship ended with demand and refusal or the death of the depositary, maintaining that the transaction remained a deposit. The court concluded that the heirs of the original depositary could be treated as depositaries under Article 145.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was within the limitation period under Article 145. The plaintiffs were entitled to recover the G.P. notes or their value with interest. The court emphasized the broader interpretation of deposit and the applicability of Article 145 to suits against the heirs of a depositary.