PALANIVEL PILLAI Vs. SUNTHARAM IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal, the defendant in O.S.No. 290 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif, Mayuram, is the appellant. The respondents herein are the plaitiffs in the suit The plaintiffs laid the suit for recovery of two items of gold jewels or their value, under the following circumstances. There was a borrowing of a sum of Rs. 2,000 by the plaintiffs from the defendant on a promissory note dated 26th July, 1969. The defendant laid the suit O.S. No. 51 of 1972 on the file of the District Munsif, Mayuram, for recovery of the amount due under the promissory note marked in that case as Bxhibit A-l, against the plaintiffs herein. The plaintiffs herein, who were the defendants in O.S. No. 51 of 1972, not only raised various contentions but also pleaded that the two items of gold jewels were piedged by them with the defendant as could be seen from a chit dated 27th July, 1969, marked in that case as Exhibit B-l and that he was bound to return the jewels on the discouarge of the suit promiss or note debt. We are here concerned only with this claim of the defendants in the earlier suit. This suit, O.S. No. 51 of 1972 was decided on 26th Match, 1973, and the District Munsif, Mayuram, accepted the case of the plaintiffs herein, the defendants in that suit, with reference to their plea that the pledge of the jewels was to secure the promissory note debt, but however, negatived the other pleas of the plaintiffs herein, the defendants in that suit, and granted a decree in favour of the defendants herein, the plaintiff in that suit as prayed for and also directed him to return the jewels on the discharge of the suit claim. The defendant herein, the plaintiff in that suit, did not accept this direction and he appealed and the appeal, A.S. No. 153 of 1974 was heard and decided by the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram on 4th December, 1975. There will be occasion to refer to in detail the import of the judgment in that appeal subsequently, but suffice it to point out at this juncture that the decree in O.S No. 51 of 1972, in so far as it directed the return of the jewels, was set aside Pleading that the cause of action for the present suit for recovery of the two items of gold jewels arose on 24th December, 1675, the date of the judgment in A.S. No. 153 of 1974, the present suit had come to be filed.

(2.) The defendant contested the present suit, denying the entrustment of the gold jewels as well as putting forth a plea that the suit claim is barred by time. The District Munsif, Mayuram, countenanced the case of the defendant, both on the question of en-trustment of the gold jewels as well as the bar of limitation and as a result, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed, but without costs. The plaintiffs appealed and the appeal, A.S. No. 82 of 1977 was heard and disposed of by the Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, and he has chosen to take different views on both the questions relating to en-trustment and the bar of limitation. The Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, on the question of limitation relied on the pronouncement in Venkataramana Iyengar v. Rangaswami Naidu 1 . As a result, the Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, set aside the judgment and decree of the first Court and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs with costs throughout. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court

(3.) At the time of admission of this second appeal, the following substantial question of law was mooted out for consideration: "Whether the suit is barred by limitation and whether the lower appellate Court has properly applied the principle adumbrated in G.V. Venkaramana Iyengar Dharmasthapanam Coimbatore, by Managing Trustee Dr. C.A. Vijayaraghavan v. P.N. Rangaswami Naidu1.