Skip to content


Raghubir Saran and ors. Vs. Lala Jumna Prasad Alias Jamna Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in116Ind.Cas.785
AppellantRaghubir Saran and ors.
RespondentLala Jumna Prasad Alias Jamna Das
Excerpt:
provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887), schedule ii, articles 35 and 43-a - limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 48--suit for return of ornaments--small cause suit--limitation. - .....of the case no criminal offence could be made out against them.2. the second argument was that the suit was barred by time. in my opinion article 48 of the limitation act was rightly applied by the trial court. in this connection it was pointed out that by the application of that article a criminal charge was assumed. such is not the case, because, the first word deals with loss, and the article applies to suits for specific moveable property lost, or for compensation. it is true that if the defendants' father had contested the suit and denied receipt of ornaments, it would have been assumed that by such, denial he exposed a dishonest intention, and there would be a presumption of his having misappropriated the property. in the present case as the suit is brought against the man's sons.....
Judgment:

Dalal, J.

1. This was a suit brought for the recovery of certain ornaments from the defendants, or their value. The defendants are the sons of a person who kept the ornaments promising to return them. It is said that the case is one of misappropriation, and the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court would be barred under Articles 35 and 43 A of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. There is no allegation of misappropriation in the plaint. The ornaments may have been lost, or the defendant's sons may have no knowledge of the ornaments. There is no allegation of a criminal charge against the defendants, and on the facts of the case no criminal offence could be made out against them.

2. The second argument was that the suit was barred by time. In my opinion Article 48 of the Limitation Act was rightly applied by the trial Court. In this connection it was pointed out that by the application of that Article a criminal charge was assumed. Such is not the case, because, the first word deals with loss, and the Article applies to suits for specific moveable property lost, or for compensation. It is true that if the defendants' father had contested the suit and denied receipt of ornaments, it would have been assumed that by such, denial he exposed a dishonest intention, and there would be a presumption of his having misappropriated the property. In the present case as the suit is brought against the man's sons no such presumption can be drawn. I dismiss this application with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //