9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (7) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the appellant. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that Santokhbai instituted a suit against Bherulal on 31st December 1946, for the recovery of a sum of money on account of various items amounting to ₹ 2,705-14-6 on he allegation that Bherulal's father Kashiram was her Mukhtar-Am and used to look after her business affairs and receive Galla on her behalf; that Kashiram died on 13th February 1943, without explaining to her the accounts of her business; and that Bherulal was thereafter asked to render the accounts but he did not do so. On 5th December 1944, Santokhbai had filed a suit for rendition of accounts against Bherulal. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 5th December 1946, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the recovery of certain amounts. Accordingly, the learned Judge modified the decree of the lower Court in the manner indicated above. 4. In this appeal the main contention of Mr. Chitale, learned counsel for the appellant, is that Section 14 of the Limitation Act could not be invoked in this case as the plaintiff's prior suit was dismissed; not on account of defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, but that it was entertained and then dismissed because the relief of the rendition of accounts was not available against the son of a deceased agent. Learned counsel relied on V.C. Thani Chettiar v. Dakshinamurthy Mudaliar, (S) AIR 1955 Mad 288 (A); Nakul Chandra Ghose v. Shyamapada Ghose, AIR 1945 Cal 381 (B); and Ramana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aks of the inability of the Court to entertain a suit or proceeding on certain specific grounds, which are of a formal nature and that inability to entertain a suit means not inability to grant relief to the plaintiff but inability to give him a trial at all. In our opinion when a suit is dismissed not because the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it, or for any other cause of a like nature, but because it was misconceived or because the proceeding or the suit was not one recognised by law as legal in its initiation, then clearly Section 14 of the Act is not attracted to such a suit. This view is amply supported by the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and numerous other cases. Now, here, the plaintiff's prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its applicability is not confined to suits for accounts. It is applicable for the recovery of any movable property which has been received by the agent and which has not been accounted for. A suit for accounts is no doubt within the ambit of Article 89 as the words 'movable property' in the Article include money. But from this it does not follow that Article 89 is not applicable to suits other than the suits for accounts. In AIR 1943 Nag 227 (D), Article 89 was applied to a suit for accounts. In that case, Bose, J., distinguished a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Ramhari v. Rohini Kanta AIR 1922 Cal 499 (E), by observing that in the Calcutta case 'Article 89 was not applied because it was held that the suit in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
