Skip to content


Gopalasami Ayyar Vs. Subramania Sastri - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1912)ILR35Mad636
AppellantGopalasami Ayyar
RespondentSubramania Sastri
Cases ReferredGopal Chandra Bosa v. Surendra Nath Dutt
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 49 - limitation begins to run upon refusal to return property detained. - .....who had get 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 repayment of the loan. article 145 of the indian limitation act, 1908, would therefore apparently to 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.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff handed over the jewel to the defendant to procure a loan for the plain biff The defendant obtained the loan. After the plaintiff had paid it off, the defendant who had get 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 repayment of the loan. Article 145 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, would therefore apparently to 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 Ayyar's contention that mere silence on defendant's part when he received exhibit B would on this account amount to refusal [see Gopal Chandra Bosa v. Surendra Nath Dutt (1903) 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 //