9911796707
TMI Blog1930 (2) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er employee of the bank; and that though Mahabali Prasad had only Rs. 101-3-1 to his credit, not less than Rs. 800 were drawn, Rs. 200 on 3rd February 1924, by Mahadeo Prasad on the authority of a letter alleged to have been written by Mahabali Prasad, Rs. 200 on 23rd January 1924, Rs. 200 on 25th January 1924, and Rs. 200 on 13th February 1924, by Mahabali Prasad himself knowing that be had not enough money to his credit and that Ram Prasad the clerk in charge who was in complicity with the other two, allowed the four sums to be drawn to the detriment of the plaintiff. Ram Prasad was convicted of offences under Sections 403 and 447-A, I.P.C. on 9th July 1924, by the Sessions Judge, Benares. The plaintiff claims Rs. 698-12-11 out of the Rup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicable to the circumstances of these cases. The plaintiff bank has preferred these two appeals from the decrees of the lower Courts dismissing the two suits. 4. A reference to the terms of Article 36 will make it clear that it is a residuary article providing a period of two years for suits: for compensation for any malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance independent of contract and not herein specially provided for. 5. If, therefore, any other article is appropriate to the circumstances of the case, Article 36 cannot apply. The learned District Judge has arrived at the conclusion that this is the proper article to be applied. The articles relied on by the plaintiff-appellant before him and before us are Arts. 48, 95 and 90. The lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agents of the plaintiff. 6. Referring to Article 48, Lim. Act, the learned District Judge has dealt with the cases of Rameshwar Chaube v. Mata Bhikh [1883] 5 All. 341 and Ram Lal v. Ghulam Husain [1907] 29 All. 579. Both of these cases are authority for the proposition that money is "specific movable property" within the meaning of Article 48 and that: Where it has been lost, acquired by theft or dishonest misappropriation or conversion, or for compensation for wrongfully taking or detaining the same, Article 48 will apply. 7. It is true that in the second of the two cases referred to, it was observed that it may be open to argument whether a suit for money could properly be considered to be a suit for '' specific mov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... binding on us as recently as 13th January 1930 in Jaganji v. Bandan AIR 1930 All 397 and consider ourselves to be bound by that view so long as a larger Bench does not rule to the contrary. If, therefore, no other article of the Limitation Act is applicable and the choice lies between Arts. 36 and 48 we cannot but hold that the case is governed by Article 48, Lim. Act, in so far as it is a suit for compensation for wrongfully taking or detaining specific movable property, i.e., money. 9. But we are clearly of opinion that Art, 95, Sch. 1, Lim. Act, is appropriate to the circumstances of the present case. That article provides a period of three years for a suit: to set aside a decree obtained by fraud, or for other relief on the ground of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
