1. The plaintiff in this case is the assignee of the heirs of one Raj Kristo Banerji, who was employed upon the establishment of the Court of Wards. He brings this suit to recover certain money which was deposited by Raj Kristo Banerji as security for the due discharge of the duties of his office. The suit is brought against the Collector as representing the Court of Wards, and against Surnomoyi Debya, widow of the late Madhub Chunder Sanyal, who now represents the estate which was formerly under the management of the Court of Wards, and upon the establishment for the management of which Raj Kristo was employed.
2. It is contended before us on behalf of the lady that the plaintiff has no cause of action as against her, and we concur in this contention. We think, therefore, that the suit as against her must be dismissed with costs both in this Court and in the lower Courts.
3. The suit as against the Collector, the Judge below has held to be barred by limitation. We are unable to concur in this finding. The contract under which the money was deposited has not been put in and proved specifically. We are, therefore, not exactly informed as to what the express stipulations were, subject to which the money was deposited. The Collector's contention was, however, that he was entitled to deduct from the deposit all sums for which Raj Kristo Banerji had not accounted; and his case is that in March 1878 an account was drawn up, and upon that account it appeared that Raj Kristo was liable to account, and had not accounted, for certain sums which very nearly covered the amount of the deposit; and that, in accordance with the terms of the security contract he was entitled to deduct, and had deducted, these sums from the amount of the deposit.
4. Upon this allegation we think that the cause of action arose in March 1878, when the account was prepared. And we think that the period of limitation applicable to the case-is certainly not less than six years, according to the provisions of Article 120, Schedule II of the Limitation Act. It may be and authority is not wanting for this view-that the amount was a deposit which Gomes under Article 1451, and that the plaintiff had thirty years from the date of the deposit. But we think it unnecessary in this case to decide this question in the affirmative, because we are satisfied that no specific rule is applicable which would reduce the period of limitation to less than six years as provided for by Article 120
Period of limita- The from which period begins
Description of snit tion. to run.
Against a deposirary or Thirty years.... The date of the deposit or pawn.
pawnee to recover moveable
property deposited or pawned.
[ q. v. supra 12 Cal. 113.]
5. Under the circumstances, we are of opinion that the Court below was wrong in dismissing the suit against the Collector on the ground of limitation. We set aside the order of dismissal, and remand the, case for trial on the merits.
5. Costs to abide the result.
6. I also am of opinion that the suit is not barred.