9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation under Article 68, Limitation Act, 1908. 2. Validity and effect of the assignment of the administration bond under Section 292, Succession Act, 1925. 3. Breach of conditions of the administration bond. 4. Applicability of Article 120, Limitation Act, 1908. 5. Effect of administrator's death on liability and bond condition. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Limitation under Article 68, Limitation Act, 1908: The appellants contended that the suit was barred by Article 68 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for suits on a bond subject to a condition, starting from when the condition is broken. The court concluded that the limitation point raised by the appellants was well-founded, rendering it unnecessary to address other matters in the appeal and cross-appeal. The court emphasized that statutes of limitation must be enforced according to their ordinary meaning, even if it results in hardship. 2. Validity and effect of the assignment of the administration bond under Section 292, Succession Act, 1925: The plaintiff, upon attaining majority, was assigned the administration bond under Section 292 of the Succession Act, 1925. The court examined whether this assignment conferred a new cause of action, thereby providing a fresh starting point for limitation. The court disagreed with the appellate Court of Bombay's view that the assignment confers substantive rights upon the assignee, stating that the assignment merely deals with the question of title and does not create a new cause of action. 3. Breach of conditions of the administration bond: The conditions of the bond required the administratrix to make a true inventory, administer the property according to law, make a just account of her administration, and deliver the residue of the property to lawful heirs. The plaintiff alleged breaches including the appointment of an attorney who misapplied the property, failure to realize certain estate shares, and failure to hand over the estate to the Accountant-General. The court held that the condition of the bond was broken at the latest on the administratrix's death, which was more than three years before the suit was filed. 4. Applicability of Article 120, Limitation Act, 1908: Article 120 applies to suits for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the schedule, with a six-year limitation period starting when the right to sue accrues. The court noted that Article 120 has no application if Article 68 applies, as the bond in question falls within the definition provided in Section 2(3) of the Limitation Act. 5. Effect of administrator's death on liability and bond condition: The court clarified that the death of the administratrix ended her liability for future events and that the condition of the bond could not be broken after her death. The estate of the intestate does not pass to the heirs or representatives of the deceased administratrix, and a new grant of administration de bonis non would be required. The court rejected the view that the condition was not broken until the plaintiff attained majority, affirming that the condition was broken at the latest on the administratrix's death. Conclusion: The court advised that the appeal should be allowed, the cross-appeal dismissed, and the suit dismissed with costs, as the defense of limitation under Article 68 was valid. The decision of the appellate Court of Bombay in the referenced case was deemed erroneous, and the judgments of the appellate Court of Rangoon and Blackwell J. were considered correct.
|
