9911796707
TMI Blog1944 (12) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vji Khimji. In 1923 plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed a suit in this Court, being Suit No. 4196 of 1923, for the dissolution of that partnership. A decree was passed in that suit on February 6, 1931. The only provision of that decree with which we are concerned is that that decree declared that plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were the owners of the assets, outstandings, claims and books of account of the firm of Jetha Mulji Co. After the decree was passed, it is clear on the evidence that Raghavji handed over the share certificates to plaintiff No. 2 on behalf of the other plaintiffs, and since then they have continued to remain with the plaintiffs. In 1932 and 19S3 three dividend warrants were received in respect of those shares. Raghavji got ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contentions were taken up in the written statement, the only one which has survived is that of limitation. 4. It is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that Raghavji as the legal owner of the shares was, while the partnership of Jetha Mulji Co. subsisted, a trustee for the other partners to the extent of their interest in these shares, and on the passing of the decree in Suit No. 4196 of 1923 these shares became vested in him in trust for the purpose of handing them over to the plaintiffs to whom they belonged as declared by the decree. It is, therefore, urged that Raghavji was an express trustee and the statute of limitation would not run in his favour. 5. Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, provides that no suit against a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made a sharp distinction between trusts created by the act of parties and certain obligations which are not trusts but which are considered to be in the nature of trusts, and Chapter IX of the Indian Trusts Act deals with these obligations. All the obligations considered in that Chapter are those which are imposed by the law in the various circumstances set out in the different sections which form-part of that Chapter. It is clear to my mind that Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act cannot possibly apply in the case of a person whom the law looks upon as a trustee because he has to discharge certain obligations in the nature of a trust. It only applies to a trustee of a trust in the strict sense of the term. 7. It is impossible to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate was not protected by the statute. Lord Esher M.R., in delivering the principal judgment, pointed out that in that case although an express trust was created, the solicitor was not at any time nominated as a trustee of that trust. Lord Esher M. Rule further observes (p. 394): The cases seem to me to decide that, where a person has assumed, either with Or with out consent, to act as a trustee of money or other property, i.e., to act in a fiduciary relation with regard to it, and has in consequence been in possession of or has exercised' command or control over such money or property, a Court of Equity will impose upon him all the liabilities of an express trustee, and will class him with and will call him an express trustee of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts of that particular case, and I am not prepared to extend the effect of those observations especially when I am conscious of the fact that we have to construe the words of our own statute, whereas in England the Judges proceed on principles of equity. Saar's case has been followed in two Bombay cases Narrondas v. Narrondas I.L.R (1907) Bom. 418 : 9 Bom. L.R. 287 and Chintamam Ravji v. Khanderao Pandurang I.L.R (1927) Bom. 184 : 30 Bom. L.R. 45. In the former case, with respect to the learned Judge, it is rather difficult to understand what exactly were the facts on which the decision was arrived at. It seems that one Ladhoo Kara and his uncle Ramji Lakhmidas carried on business in partnership.. Ladhoo Kara's share was three- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the rest of the judgment of Mr. Justice Russell in Narrndas v. Narrondas I.L.R (1907) Bom. 418 : 9 Bom. L.R. 287 as mere obiter dicta. The same view of that case was taken in Ammalu Amma v. Narayanan Nair I.L.R (1927) Mad. 549 and Mr. Justice Carr and Mr. Justice Brown in Ma Them May v. U P Kin I.L.R (1925) R.A. 206 have gone to the length of considering that the judgment of Mr. Justice Russell is unsound. 9. Sitting as a single Judge, the decision of Mr. Justice Russell is undoubtedly binding on me; but I do not think that the facts before me are in any way comparable to the facts on which that judgment was based. 10. In Chintatmn Ravji v. Khanderao Pandurang Pandurang's widow left a sum of Rs. 2,309 to her brother Rav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
