Skip to content


Narayanasamy thevar Vs. Aiyasami Iyengar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in18Ind.Cas.921
AppellantNarayanasamy thevar
RespondentAiyasami Iyengar
Excerpt:
limitation - suit for price of rubies given for being worked into jewel--deposit--mandatum--limitation act (xv of 1877), schedule ii, articles 49, 89, 90 and 145. - .....have an olai, ear ornament, made through that goldsmith, the 20 rubies to be used in making that olai. the plaint further alleges that the defendant was requested to have the olai made as soon as possible. the 20 rubies were thus not to be returned to the plaintiff as loose rubies but to be worked into the olai. it is clear, to my mind, (see bouvier's law dictionary, page 547, as to the definition of a deposit and also halsbury's laws of england, volume i, page 535, as regards the difference between a deposit and a mandatum, and also encyclopedia of the laws of england, page 458, and the american cyclopedia, volume xiii, page 794, as regards the definition of a depositary) that the plaintiff did not make a deposit, in the legal sense, of the rubies with the defendant and the defendant.....
Judgment:

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. He alleged in his plaint that in 1896, he gave 20 loose rubies to defendant who was his friend in order that the defendant might give the rubies to a goldsmith and have an olai, ear ornament, made through that goldsmith, the 20 rubies to be used in making that olai. The plaint further alleges that the defendant was requested to have the olai made as soon as possible. The 20 rubies were thus not to be returned to the plaintiff as loose rubies but to be worked into the olai. It is clear, to my mind, (see Bouvier's Law Dictionary, page 547, as to the definition of a deposit and also Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume I, page 535, as regards the difference between a deposit and a mandatum, and also Encyclopedia of the Laws of England, page 458, and the American Cyclopedia, Volume XIII, page 794, as regards the definition of a depositary) that the plaintiff did not make a deposit, in the legal sense, of the rubies with the defendant and the defendant did not become a depositary. It was a mandatum given to defendant to have the rubies worked into a jewel. It is farther admitted in the plaint that ill-feeling- arose between plaintiff and defendant in 1898, and he, the defendant, did not have the olai made and that he retained the 20 rubies in contravention of the understanding between the parties, (see paragraph 4 of the plaint). The present suit is brought for the value of the rubies 15 years after they had been handed over to the defendant. The District Munsif applied Article 120 of the Limitation Act and as the plaintiff alleged that the cause of action arose in 1896 itself dismissed the plaintiff's suit as barred. The petitioner-plaintiff contends before me that Article 145 of the Limitation Act, which gives 30 years for a suit against a depositary to recover moveable property deposited, applies to this case. I am clear that there was no deposit in the legal sense as the moveable property deposited was not itself to be returned in the condition in which it would naturally remain at the time of the return (along with any natural accretions if any such accretions happen to be added), but the defendant promised to have some work performed in connection with the rubies and to deliver a jewel into which the said rubies had to be worked. Hence Article 145 cannot apply. As regards Article 120, that is a residuary Article which should be applied only when no other Article applies. I think Article 49, Article 89 or Article 90 might apply to this case. If this suit is held to be one for recovery of specific moveables or for compensation for wrongfully detaining the same, Article 49 will apply. The prescribed period is three years from when the detainer's possession becomes unlawful. The defendant's possession, according to the plaint itself, became unlawful in 1898 and the present suit is, therefore, barred. If defendant is considered as plaintiff's agent, who was bound to do some act for his principal and neglected to perform it, Article 89 or Article 90 might apply; and as the agency must be deemed to have terminated in 1898, when the parties became enemies, the suit is barred even in this view.

2. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs.


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