Back
1927 Supreme(Nagpur) 182
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Macnair
LALSINGH – Appellant
Versus
JIWANRAM – Respondent
Decided on : 01-09-1927
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of the Limitation Act, particularly in relation to time-barred claims and the interpretation of a contract of agency.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Time Barred Claim - Contract of Agency
Fact of the Case:
Jiwanram sued the defendant for an account of the produce of certain fields for the years 1913 to 1919, alleging that the defendant retained the produce of the fields on his behalf. The claim was found to be time-barred under either Article 62 or Article 89 of the Limitation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The lower appellate Court's reasoning that Article 89 of the Limitation Act would not apply because the defendant was not a contracting party was deemed to be unsupported. The Court found that if there were something in the nature of a contract of agency, the agent or his representative could be sued, and the suit would fall under Article 89. The Court also noted that the suit was barred by limitation, and the lower appellate Court's order for further inquiry into questions of fact was set aside, restoring the decree of the first Court dismissing the suit.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of Article 62 and Article 89 of the Limitation Act, the nature of the defendant's involvement as an agent or representative, and the time-barred nature of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the nature of a contract of agency and the application of the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, leading to the finding that the suit was indeed time-barred.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the lower appellate Court's order for further inquiry, restored the decree of the first Court dismissing the suit, and directed that costs in all Courts be borne by the plaintiff, with a specified pleader's fee in this Court.
Macnair, A J C—Jiwanram, the respondent in this Court sued the defendant, the adopted son of one Hari Singh, for an account of the produce of certain fields for the years 1913 to 1919. He alleged that Hari Singh retained the produce of the fields during these years on his behalf. It appears quite clear that on the plaint allegations either Article 62 or Article 89, Lim. Act, would govern the suit. In either case, the claim was barred by time. The lower appellate Court considers that because the defendant is not actually a contracting party, Article 89, Schedule 1, Lim. Act, will not apply. There is no force in this reasoning and it receives no support from any dicta in Kumeda Charan v. Aushutosh, 1913 17 CalWN 5.
2. If there were something in the nature of a contract of agency, the agent or his representative could be sued, and the suit would fall under Article 89. Apart from this, it is admitted before me that Hari Singh returned the fields in his lifetime, so that the cause of action accrued when he returned the fields. The defendant stated that the fields were given to him on a lease in order to satisfy a debt due to him. If this is the case, there was probably, an implied promise to pay the surplus profit to the plaintiff, but clearly a suit for such profit would be governed by Article 62, Lim. Act. The lower appellate Court has failed to come to a clear finding regarding the facts but in any casa the suit is barred by limitation. The order of the lower appellate Court, directing further enquiry into questions of fact is therefore set aside, and the decree of the first Court, dismissing the suit is restored. Costs in all Courts will be borne by the plaintiff. Pleader's fee in this Court Rs. 50.
