SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD Vs. KRISHNAJI VAMAN DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. They have been set out earlier at least four times.

(2.) TWO points have been argued. Firstly, the suit is barred by limitation and, secondly, the plaintiff's own cause of action indicates that it is in violation of Section 41 of the Insurance Act and that, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief in the suit.

(3.) ON the first contention, the argument proceeds as follows : the deceased Deshpande was an Insurance Agent He was doing the work of insurance of the petitioner-Sangh. He was getting commission from the insurance Company He did that work of insurance from 1955 to 25th august, 1975. The commission that he received was all deposited with the petitioner-Sangh. He filed the suit in the Co-operative Court on or about 13t h October, 1978. The argument is that there is no agreement to pay on demand. And secondly, if it could be said to be a trust, so as to save limitation under Section 10 of the Limitation Act, then in that event, having regard to the language of Section 10 of the Limitation Act, it must be an 'express trust'. In the present case, there is no express trust and, therefore, it cannot be said that the period of limitation can be saved by relying on the same. In support of this contention, Mr. Setalwad relied on the case of annamalai Chettiar v. A. M. K. C. T. Muthukaruppan Chettiar, reported in air 1931 Privy Council 9, as also on the case of Lala Hem Chand v. Lala pearey Lal, reported in AIR (29) 1942 Privy Council 64, for the purpose of showing that the trust must necessarily, be on express trust He submitted that in the present case, there is no question of any trust at all, express or implied.