The limitation period for a suit for the return of specific movable property or compensation for wrongfully taking, injuring, or detaining the same starts from the date when the detainer's possession becomes unlawful.

JUDGMENT : The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff Heeralal (who died during the pendency of this litigation and is now represented by the appellants, his heirs) for Rs. 500/- on account of compensation for failure to return a 500 bore gun alleged to have been lent by the plaintiff to the defendant's father Shri Sumersingh the then Maharaja of Thikana Indergarh. The plaintiff's case, in short was that sometime in 1941-42 he handed over a 500 bore gun belonging to him to Shri Sumer Singh for 'Shikar'. In the course of hunt a man was accidentally killed with the result that a criminal case was registered against Shri Sumersingh as well as his companions, who had accompanied him for the sport, and the plaintiffs gun was also confiscated by the Government of Madhya Pradesh in whose territory the accident had taken place. The gun was ultimately returned by the Government sometime in 1950 by which time Shri Sumer Singh had expired. His estate Thikana Indergarh was brought under the management of the Court of Wards as his son Shri Bhagwat Singh, the defendant was then a minor. It is stated that the Commissioner, Jagir, ordered return of the gun to the plaintiff on the Collector's report dated 28-8-1950. However, this order was not communicated to the plaintiff. The plaintiff goes on to state that on having come to know of the order of return of the gun to him, he submitted an application to the guardian of the defendant on 5-9-1957 for handing over the gun to him. The guardian made

enquiries from the Subordinate Officers and the Kamdar Thikana made a report on 28-1-1958 that the plaintiffs gun had been received in the Thikana, and the same may be returned to him. On submission of this report the guardian directed the same day that the gun may be returned to the plaintiff. It is alleged that the plaintiff was called to pick up his gun from the store of arms of the defendant, but the same was not found there. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that thereafter on 14-4-1959 the guardian of the defendant filed the papers and thereby impliedly refused to return the gun to the plaintiff or in the alternative to pay compensation for the same. On these facts the plaintiff prayed that a decree for return of the gun may be passed in his favour or in the alternative the defendant may be directed to pay Rupees 500/- to the plaintiff by way of compensation for the same.

2. Since the defendant was a minor his guardian filed written statement and denied the plaintiff's suit altogether.

3. After recording the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Munsiff, Kota decreed the plaintiff's suit as prayed, by his judgment dated 11-11-1960. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court the defendant filed appeal which was allowed by the District Judge, Kota. who by his judgment dated 19-2-1964 set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Consequently, this appeal has been preferred by the heirs of the plaintiff Heeralal.

4. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the learned District Judge committed an error of law in dismissing the plaintiff's suit as barred by limitation. It is submitted in the first place that Article 145 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (which was in force at the time of the presentation of the suit) would apply to the present case, and since that Article prescribes a period of 30 years from the date of the deposit, the suit was clearly within limitation. In the alternative it is urged that even if Art. 49 of the Act of 1908 is applied the suit has been brought within three years from the date the defendant's possession over the gun in question became unlawful.

5. Before I proceed to examine the contention raised on behalf of the appellants, it may be useful to state that all other points arising in the case which had been decided in favour of the plaintiff by the trial Court were not challenged before the learned District Jud