Skip to content


Srimati Sarashibala Dassi, Administratrix to the Estate of Her Husband Jatindra Mohan Kumar Vs. Chooni Lal Ghose - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1922Cal53,65Ind.Cas.219
AppellantSrimati Sarashibala Dassi, Administratrix to the Estate of Her Husband Jatindra Mohan Kumar
RespondentChooni Lal Ghose
Cases Referred and Chandra Madhab Barua v. Nabin Chandra Barua
Excerpt:
accounts, suit for, against agent - claim for period before death of principal--limitation--contract act (ix of 1872), section 201--limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 89. - .....then acted as the plaintiff's agent. the suit having been brought more than three years after the death of jotindra, the claim for accounts for the period before the death of jotindra has been held to be barred under article 89 of the limitation act. as provided by section 201 of the contract act, an agency is terminated by either the principal or agent dying, and a suit against the agent for the period during which he acted as agent under the deceased must, therefore, be brought within three years of the death, as laid down in article 89 of the limitation act. see madhusudan sen v. rakhal chandra das basak co ind. cas. 697 : 48 c.248 : 22 c.l.j. 552 : 19 c.w.n. 1070 and chandra madhab barua v. nabin chandra barua 18. ind. cas. 735 : 40 c. 108 : 17 c.l.j.3. it is, however, contended on.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for accounts against, an agent, and the question involved in the appeal is whether the claim for accounts from 1301 to 9th Sraban 1319 corresponding to 25th July 1912 is barred by limitation.

2. The-defendant acted as gomasta under the plaintiff's husband Jotindra until his death, which took place on the 25th July. 1912, He then acted as the plaintiff's agent. The suit having been brought more than three years after the death of Jotindra, the claim for accounts for the period before the death of Jotindra has been held to be barred under Article 89 of the Limitation Act. As provided by Section 201 of the Contract Act, an agency is terminated by either the principal or agent dying, and a suit against the agent for the period during which he acted as agent under the deceased must, therefore, be brought within three years of the death, as laid down in Article 89 of the Limitation Act. See Madhusudan Sen v. Rakhal Chandra Das Basak CO Ind. Cas. 697 : 48 C.248 : 22 C.L.J. 552 : 19 C.W.N. 1070 and Chandra Madhab Barua v. Nabin Chandra Barua 18. Ind. Cas. 735 : 40 C. 108 : 17 C.L.J.

3. It is, however, contended on behalf of the appellant that the case comes under Section 209 of the Contract Act. That section lays down that when an agency is terminated by the principal dying or becoming of unsound mind, the agent is bound to take, on behalf of, the representatives of his late principal, all reasonable steps for the protection and preservation of the interests entrusted to him it is contended that the defendant was in the position of a trustee so far as the interest of the deceased was concerned and that the suit for accounts against him would be in time if instituted within six years from the death of the plaintiff's husband under Article 120 of the Limitation Act.

4. There is, however, no question here of suing the defendant for any act hope by him after the death of his late principal, which he might have-done as a trustee. The suit is for accounts on the ground that he was bound to render accounts to his, late principal during his lifetime, which he did not render. That would be a suit for accounts under Article 89 of the Limitation Act.

5. We think the Court below is right in holding, that the, claim for the period prior to the death of Jotindra was barred by limitation.

6. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with coats.


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