Skip to content


Gopalsami Iyer Vs. Subramania Sastri - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1912)22MLJ152
AppellantGopalsami Iyer
RespondentSubramania Sastri
Cases ReferredSee Gopal Chandar Bose v. Surendranath Dutt
Excerpt:
- .....an agreement that the jewel should remain in deposit with the defendant after the re-payment of loan. article 145 of the indian limitation act, 1908, would, therefore, apparently be inapplicable. but the defendant must be taken to have held possession of the jewel on behalf of the plaintiff until the date of exhibit iii. we are, therefore, of opinion that under article 49 of the indian limitation, act, 1908, the suit is not barred by limitation. we are unable to agree with mr. srinivasa aiyar's contention that mere silence on defendant's part when he received exhibit b would on this account amount to refusal. see gopal chandar bose v. surendranath dutt (1908) 12 c.w.n. 1010 . we reverse the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the munsif with costs both here and in.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff handed over the jewel to the defendant to procure a loan for the plaintiff. The defendant obtained the loan. After the plaintiff had paid it off, the defendant, who got back the jewel, retained possession of it The plaintiff made a demand on defendant for the return of it by Exhibit B on 18th August 1904. The defendant's refusal to return was on 29th April 1906 (Exhibit III) and the suit was instituted on 18th February 1908, i. e., within three years after the defendant's refusal. The plaint does not allege that there was an agreement that the jewel should remain in deposit with the defendant after the re-payment of loan. Article 145 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, would, therefore, apparently be inapplicable. But the defendant must be taken to have held possession of the jewel on behalf of the plaintiff until the date of Exhibit III. We are, therefore, of opinion that under Article 49 of the Indian Limitation, Act, 1908, the suit is not barred by limitation. We are unable to agree with Mr. Srinivasa Aiyar's contention that mere silence on defendant's part when he received Exhibit B would on this account amount to refusal. See Gopal Chandar Bose v. Surendranath Dutt (1908) 12 C.W.N. 1010 . We reverse the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the Munsif with costs both here and in the lower appellate court.


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