CHINTAMAN DHUNDIRAJ Vs. SADGURU NARAYAN MAHARAJ DATTA SANSTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SPECIAL Civil Suit No. 208 of 1947 filed by the plaintiff Shrimant H. H. Sir Chintaman Dhundiraj alias Appasaheb Patwardhan against the defendants for a decree for Rs. 35,000 from the estate of defendant 1 with the defendants or in the alternative for a decree for Rs. 20,000 with interest from 10-11-1944 has been dismissed. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court.

(2.) IT was the plaintiff's case that Shri Sadguru Narayan Maharaj Kedgaonkar established an institution described as Shri Sadguru Narayan Maharaj Datta Sansthan and Datta Mandir, Ked-gaon, Bet Taluka Bhimthadi, District Poona; that during his lifetime Shri Narayan Maharaj was doing daily and occasional worship of Shri Datta and big festivals and puja of Shri Satyanarayan were performed on a large scale; that Sansthan devotees were paying cash or offering various gifts on several occasions and from these gifts and offerings the expenses of the Sansthan were met; that Shri Narayan Maharaj thought it expedient to make arrangements or a permanent income for the expenses of the Sansthan, so that the institution may not have to depend on the offerings made by the devotees; that for making a permanent arrangement in that behalf Shri Narayan Maharaj got a mortgage deed of the Inami income of the village of Menavali, Taluka Wai, from Sardar Balaji Madhavrao Phadnis and Janardan Balajt Pliadnis; that before taking the mortgage deed, Shri Narayan Maharaj had a desire to purchase two villages for the Shri Datta Sansthan; that for taking such properties he had not got sufficient funds and he wanted Rs. 35,000 and on that account he wrote a letter on 11-7-1939 to the plaintiff and asked him to pay the amount and he promised to repay the amount after Kartik Pournima of that year (October 1939); that as requested, the plaintiff gave a cheque for Rs. 35,000 on 12-7-1939, drawn on the Bank of India; that Shri Narayan Maharaj had promised in his letter that he-would send the title deeds of the village to the plaintiff for his custody if he so desired that Shri Narayan Maharaj was unable to pay the amount after Kartik Pournima of Samvat year 1996 as promised; that at diverse times the plaintiff demanded the moneys from Narayan Maharaj and ultimately on 25-9-1942 he sent a cheque for Rs. 35,000 drawn on the Imperial Bank of India, Poona City, in the name of the plaintiff; that the same was not honoured as the amount was not arranged for' by Shri Narayan Maharaj; that thereafter on 10-11-1944 Shri Narayan Maharaj gave four cheques each of Rs. 5,000 each in the name of the plaintiff for cashing with the Imperial Bank of India, Poona City, and the cheques were returned with the endorsement 'refer to Drawer'; that there after Shri Narayan Maharaj died on 3-9-1945, having executed a deed of management of the Datta Mandir and its property and having appointed defendants 2 to 10 as its trustees; that the Datta Man- dir and its property are liable to pay the dues of the plaintiff, that the amount was demanded by the plaintiff, but the defendants failed and neglected to make any payment and hence the suit for the recovery of Rs. 35,000 advanced on 12-7-1939. The plaintiff claimed that the entire claim for Rs. 35,000 was within limitation in view of the acknowledgment of liability and part-payment by cheques given by Shri Narayan Maharaj on 25-9-1942 and 10-11-1944. In the alternative the plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs. 20,000 being the amount of four cheques of Rs. 5,000 each, the cause of action being the consideration of dishonoured cheques. The plaintiff claimed by his plaint a decree against the property of the first defendant institution namely, Shri Sadguru Narayan Maharaj Datta Sansthan and Datta Mandir Kedgaon Bet.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendants on diverse grounds. They contended that Narayan Maharaj had not received Rs. 35,000 as the manager of the first defendant, that in any event the claim was not within limitation, that the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain a decree on the cause of action arising out of dishonoured cheques dated 10-11-1644; that the amount was borrowed by Shri Narayan Maharaj in his personal capacity and not as the manager of defendant 1 institution and that defendants 2 to 10 were not the legal representatives of Shri Narayan Maharaj.