Article 145 of the Limitation Act applies to suits against a depositary or pawnee to recover movable property deposited or pawned, including money deposited as security.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the sole defendant in O. S. 74 of 1959, which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a firm of auctioneers. It acted as the auctioneer for the Government of India during the period from October 194 5/11/1946. As security for the proper discharge of its functions, the firm deposited a sum of Rs. 11,000 with the Government of India in or about the end of October 1945. There was settlement of accounts about the middle of the year 1947 at which a sum of Rs. 4398 was found due to the said Government. The plaintiff-firm has laid the suit on 7-12-1959 for the recovery of Rs. 6,602 being the balance of deposit amount after deducting Rs. 4,398 due to the Government. The amount was claimed with interest at 12 per cent from the date of suit. The facts were not disputed by the defendant, the Union of India, represented by its Secretary in the Department of Supply. But the suit was contested on the question whether it was in time. That was the only issue in the suit. The learned Fourth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad held that the suit was governed by Article 145 of the Indian Limitation Act and was in time as so he decreed the suit for the amount claimed, but with interest at 6 per cent per annum.

( 3 ) THE point taken in this appeal is that the suit is not governed by Article 145 of the Indian Limitation Act, but Article 115 of the Limitation Act. I shall first examine Article 145 of the Limitation Act, which was applied by the Court below. It contemplates a suit against a depositary or pawnee to recover movable property deposited or pawned, and provides a period of thirty years as limitation starting from the date of deposit or pawn. In the instant case, there is no controversy that the amount was deposited as security for the due performance of the functions of the plaintiff as an auctioneer. There can, therefore be little doubt that the Government is a depositary. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India has, however, raised the question that the Article contemplates the recovery of specific movable property and so it would not be correct to apply it to money as such. The term movable property is not defined under the Limitation Act. But we find a clear antithesis in certain of the Articles, notably Articles 48 and 49 providing for suits for recovery of specific movable property, and those Articles have received an interpretation that they govern return of movable property in specie.

( 4 ) A Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Pichuvadiar v. Secy. of State for India in Council, (1917) ILR 40 Mad 767 at p. 774: (AIR 1918 Mad 1111 at p. 1114) (Justice Ayling and Justice Seshagiri Ayyar) has ruled that it was well established, both with reference to the Indian Contract Act and the Limitation Act that the term moveable property included money as well. In Asghar Ali Khan v. khurshed Ali Khan, (1902) ILR 24 All 27 (PC) the Privy Council considered Article 89 of the Limitation Act of 1877 (Act XV of 1877) and held that movable property contemplated therein included money. This interpretation has been adopted by a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Lala Gobind Prasad v. Chairman of Patna Municipality, (1907) 6 Cal LJ 535 and by the Madras High Court in Abilyamba Chatram v. R. Subramania Ayyar, AIR 1954 Mad 101. 1 think that this is sufficient authority for the proposition that the term moveable property within the meaning of the Article in question includes money.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel has raised another point as excluding this Article. He contended that no cause of action accrued to the depositor to recover the same on deposit and, inasmuch as the starting point provided in the Article is the date of the deposit, it is not correct to apply the Article when a cause of action had not arisen on the date of the deposit. For this view, he finds support in a Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Ruin Ranbijay Prasad Singh v. Mt. Bachai Kuari