Back
Allahbad High Court
M.P.MEHROTRA
Sukhdei - Appellant
Versus
Naipal Ram Jagannath Prasad - Respondent
Decided On : 04/18/1974
LIMITATION - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY - ARTICLE 91(B) OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - APPLICABILITY - BAILMENT - WRONGFUL DETENTION OF MOVABLE PROPERTY - LIMITATION STARTS FROM THE DATE OF WRONGFUL DETENTION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, filed a suit for recovery of money from the defendants, the legal representatives of Madho Kumhar, who had taken brass sheets from the plaintiff for preparing vessels on labour charges. The plaintiff claimed that Madho Kumhar had not returned the brass sheets or paid the labour charges, and that the defendants were liable to pay the outstanding amount. The defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation, as the account between the parties was not a mutual, open and current account.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation. It found that the account between the parties was not a mutual, open and current account, as the wages payable to Madho Kumhar were not independent obligations arising out of independent transactions, but arose out of the one and the same transaction between the parties. However, the court held that the suit was covered by Article 91(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a limitation period of three years for suits for compensation for wrongfully taking or injuring or wrongfully detaining any other specific movable property. The court found that the limitation started from the date when the defendants refused to return the raw material or pay compensation for it, and that the suit was filed within the limitation period.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation. 2. Whether the account between the parties was a mutual, open and current account. 3. Whether Article 91(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable to the facts of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation, as it was covered by Article 91(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a limitation period of three years for suits for compensation for wrongfully taking or injuring or wrongfully detaining any other specific movable property. 2. The court found that the account between the parties was not a mutual, open and current account, as the wages payable to Madho Kumhar were not independent obligations arising out of independent transactions, but arose out of the one and the same transaction between the parties. 3. The court held that the limitation started from the date when the defendants refused to return the raw material or pay compensation for it, and that the suit was filed within the limitation period.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree of the lower courts.
MEHROTRA, J. :- This is the defendants' second appeal. The trial court substantially decreed the suit and the lower appellate court has affirmed the said decree. The defendants have felt aggrieved and have filed the instant second appeal in this Court.
2. I am reproducing the following portion of the judgement of the lower appellate court with a view to state the facts of the case :
"The plaintiff M/s. Naipal Ram Jagannath Prasad filed this suit on 17-3-71 for recovery of Rs. 5373.40 P. plus Rs. 1934.28 P. interest, i.e. a total of Rs. 7307.68 P. The plaint allegations are that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of sale, purchase and manufacture of brass vessels in Thatheri Bazar, Varanasi City, for the last many years. Late Madho Kumhar alias Mahadeo Kumhar used to take brass-sheets, popularly known as 'Chanda', from the plaintiff firm for preparing vessels on usual labour charges. Mahadeo Kumhar had a running account in the Karigar Bahi or the Malkhata of the plaintiff-firm. It contained all entries regarding the amount of brass-sheets taken by Madho Kumhar for preparing vessels, the labour charges paid to him etc. etc. The account was squared up on Savan Badi 13 Sambat 2018.
Thereafter, during the period Savan Sudi 6 Sambat 2018 - corresponding to 17-8-61 to Aghan Badi 14 Sambat 2025 - corresponding to 19-11-68, Madho Kumhar took a total of brass-sheets weighing 9636.220 Kgs. and a cash of Rs. 8315.63 P. But Madho Kumhar prepared vessels of the total weight of 9177.760 Kgs. and returned the vessels to the plaintiff-firm during the period Bhadon Badi 8 Sambat 2018 - corresponding to 2-9-61 to Miti Poos Sudi 11 Sambat 2025 - corresponding to 30-12-68 and earned a total amount of Rs. 8787.59 P. as his Labour charges therefore, Thus, Madho Kumhar had to return an account for brass-sheets weighing 458.460 Kgs. and to get a sum of Rupees 471.96 P. by way of his Labour charges.
Madho Kumhar died some 1½ years prior to the filing of the suit leaving behind defendant No. 2 as his daughter from his first wife and defendant No. 1 as his second wife. Both of these defendants have inherited and succeeded to the assets of Madho Kumhar as his heirs and are in lawful enjoyment thereof. The final balance was struck in the plaintiffs books of account on 11-3-68 - according to which Madho Kumhar had to return and account for brass Chanda weighing 458.450 Kgs. and he had to receive Rupees 471.96 by way of his labour charges. The price of this much of brass Chanda at the rate of Rs. 12.75 P. per Kg. comes to Rs. 5845.36 P. and after deducting the labour charges due to Madho Kumhar, the final balance comes to Rs. 5,373.40 P. Hence, the claim for Rs. 5373.40 P. plus interest Rs. 1934.28-P.
The defendants have contested the suit denying all the allegations as made in the plaint. They have contended that Madho Kumhar had stomach trouble and he had been seriously ill for the last 10 years and it was wrong to say that he took brass-sheets from the plaintiff-firm for preparing vessels on labour charges. It is also denied that he ever received any cash from the plaintiff towards labour charges or any such brass sheets. They have contended that the books of account relied upon by the plaintiff firm are all forged and fictitious calculated to make undue gain. It is further contended that the plaintiff did not file the suit within 3 years in any case and, as such it was barred by law of limitation. The defendants are not liable on any account to pay the debt in question.
The learned trial court found that the books of accounts relied upon by the plaintiff firm are quite genuine and the plaintiff was entitled to the sum of Rupees 5373.40 P. as the price of the brass-sheet" supplied to Madho Kumhar, but in the absence of any agreement as to interest it could not be allowed to the plaintiff. The learned trial Court rejected the contention of the defendants that the books of account relied upon by the plaintiff-firm we
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
