JUDGMENT

1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought to recover a sum of Rs. 17,000 odd, the defendants in the case being Babu lal and Kishun Gopal, sons of Kedar Nath. These defendants apparently are the owners of the firm called "Babu Lal and Kedar Nath," carrying on business at Cawnpore. The firm has become insolvent and the estate of the defendants is now represented by the Official Receiver.

2. The plaintiffs in the suit are the descendants of one Bhawani Shanker who died on the 12th of February 1912. This man, Bhawani Shanker, owned a business at Farrukhabad which was carried on in the name of Mahanand Ram Bhawani Shanker.

3. On the 27th or 28th of December 1911 Bhawani Shanker sent certain hundis to the defendant firm at Cawnpore for realisation and credit to his account.

4. It is stated that the directions to the defendant firm were that the money should be treated as a fixed deposit payable six months after date.

5. On the 8th of February 1912 Bhawani Shanker wrote a letter to the defendant firm with respect to this deposit. He directed the defendants to open a fresh account in his name and to credit him with a sum of Rs. 12,000, and in his letter he stated that this sum was to be applied for the purpose of educating five boys of his community to enable them to pass the LL.B and Pleadership examination of the High Court.

6. This letter was received by the defendant firm and was answered by a letter dated the 9th February 1912 which is to be found at page 1 of the supplemental book A.

7. Four days after he wrote this letter, Bhawani Shanker died. After this, certain claims were presented to the defendant firm in respect of this money, and one of the claimants was Mohan Lal who apparently had succeeded to the business of Bhawani Shanker of Farrukhabad.

8. The defendant firm having these several claims made against it refused to pay until one or other of the claimants had established his title to the money.

9. The result of all this was that a suit was filed on the 29th June 1915 by Mohan Lal against the defendant firm claiming this money.

10. That suit was resisted on several grounds. One of the pleas in defence taken was that the money was trust money and that the plaintiff Mohan Lal could not recover it. Another plea was a plea of limitation.

11. In the course of the trial of that suit a certain statement was made on behalf of the defendant firm by the Pleader who was engaged to conduct the defence.

12. On the 23rd November 1915, while the suit was still pending, the Pleader for the defendants stated that if the plaintiff Mohan Lal presented Probate or letters of Administration or a Succession Certificate, the defendants would have no objection to pay him the amount in dispute with interest thereon for six months.

13. The suit was, however, dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the 27th January 1915 on the ground that the plaintiff, Mohan Lal, had failed to obtain a Succession Certificate. This order dismissing the suit was confirmed in appeal by this Court.

14. At the time the suit brought by Mohan Lal was pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, proceedings were going on in the Court of the District Judge for the purpose of obtaining a Succession Certificate. For one reason or another this Certificate was not obtained till the month of December 1918 Mohan Lal has since died and now we have the present suit instituted on the 27th January 1920.

15. We have to deal here with two pleas which were raised in defence. One was that the money held by the defendant firm was trust money which Bhawani Shanker had made over for the purpose specified in his letter of the 8th February 1912. It was pleaded that the present plaintiffs had no right to have the money. The other plea taken was that the suit was barred by time.

16. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the suit was not barred by limitation. On the other hand, he was of opinion that the money had been dedicated in trust for the purpose specified in the