9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (3) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff's case that Shri Sadguru Narayan Maharaj Kedgaonkar established an institution described as Shri Sadguru Narayan Maharaj Datta Sansthan and Datta Mandir, Kedgaon, Bet Taluka Bhimthadi, District Poona; that during his lifetime Shri Narayan Maharaj was doing daily and occasional worship of Shri Datta and big festivals and puja of Shri Satyanarayan were performed on a large scale; that Sansthan devotees were paying cash or offering various gifts on several occasions and from these gifts and offerings the expenses of the Sansthan were met; that Shri Narayan Maharaj thought it expedient to make arrangements or a permanent income for the expenses of the Sansthan, so that the institution may not have to depend on the offerings made by the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, and the cheques were returned with the endorsement 'Refer to Drawer'; that there after Shri Narayan Maharaj died on 3-9-1945, having executed a deed of management of the Datta Mandir and its property and having appointed defendants 2 to 10 as its trustees; that the Datta Man- dir and its property are liable to pay the dues of the plaintiff, that the amount was demanded by the plaintiff, but the defendants failed and neglected to make any payment and hence the suit for the recovery of ₹ 35,000 advanced on 12-7-1939. The plaintiff claimed that the entire claim for ₹ 35,000 was within limitation in view of the acknowledgment of liability and part-payment by cheques given by Shri Narayan Maharaj on 25-9-1942 and 10-11- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the plaintiff contends that the learned trial Judge was in error in holding that the claim was barred by the law of limitation. Mr. Banaji says that the amount having been borrowed by Shri Narayan Maharaj on 12-7-1939 on his agreeing to repay it in October 1939 by acknowledgments and part payments made by cheques dated 25-9-1942 and 10-11-1944, the suit filed on 8-11-1947 must be regarded as within limitation. We are unable to accept that contention. There is in our view no acknowledgment of liability merely by giving a cheque which is dishonoured, and a cheque which is dishonoured cannot be regarded as part payment within the meaning of Section 20, Limitation Act. Reliance was sought to be placed upon a judgment of the Calc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the debt due by Narayan Maharaj was conditionally satisfied. But when the cheque was dishonoured, there was a revival of the debt and the suit had to be filed within the normal period of limitation. In our view, the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the claim for the amount of ₹ 35,000 on the original debt was barred by the law of limitation. 6. But the plaintiff had claimed a decree for ₹ 20,000 on the four cheques dated 10-11-1944. The suit having been filed on 8-11-1947 was within limitation and we do not see why a decree should not be passed in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of ₹ 20,000 on the footing that the cause of action which arises in favour of the plaintiff is on the four dishonoured che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the institution may be met. But whatever his object Shri Narayan Maharaj being in the position of a Shebait or a trustee of the institution, his power to incur debts must be measured by the existing necessity for incurring them. It was never alleged in the plaint that there was any existing necessity for incurring any debt. The power of a shebait to render liable the estate of a religious institution is analogous to the power of a manager of an infant heir and he is not entitled to borrow monies so as to render the property of the institution liable unless there is an existing necessity or in other words, there is legal necessity or benefit to the estate. It is now well settled that the power can only be exercised for protective pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim of the plaintiff out of the estate if any, in their possession. 9. On the view taken, we set aside the decree of the learned trial Judge dismissing the plaintiff's suit and pass in his favour a decree for ₹ 20,000 with interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till satisfaction. The decree will be passed against defendants 2 to 10 as representing the estate of Shri Narayan Maharaj and to be satisfied by them out of the estate if any received by them and not duly applied for. The plaintiff will also be entitled to his costs in proportion to his successors in both the Courts from defendants 2 to 10 as representatives of the estate of Shri Narayan Maharaj. 10. Appeal partly allowed. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
