RADHI KATHARI BHOIR Vs. NAMDEO DHAKU BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order passed by the Extra-Assistant Judge of Thana remanding the suit which had been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Panvel on the grounds that it was not maintainable and that it was time-barred.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff, who was formerly the certificated guardian of the defendant and her sister during their minority, to recover Rs. 1,300 which he claimed to have spent out of his own pocket for the benefit of the minors. THE defendant was born on April 14, 1912, and the plaintiff was appointed the guardian of the person and property of the defendant and her sister on April 20, 1920. THE defendant's sister died in 1925 and the defendant attained her majority on April 14, 1933. She then made an application to the District Court that her propery should be ordered to be restored to her by the plaintiff. That application was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that he should be allowed to remain in possession until the amount which he had spent out of his pocket was paid out of the income of the property. THE Assistant Judge, however, passed an order on April 5, 1935, that the plaintiff should hand over possession of the property to the defendant and, if so advised, he should file a separate suit to recover the amount claimed by him. Accordingly the plaintiff delivered possession of the property on April 10, 1935, and filed this suit on July 13, 1935.

(3.) AS regards the second issue, it is urged on behalf of the appellant that the suit is governed by Article 61 of the first schedule to the Indian Limitation Act which prescribes for a suit "for money payable to the plaintiff for money paid for the defendant" a period of three years from the date "when the money is paid". The plaintiff alleges that he used to spend money for the defendant, and it is, therefore, contended that he was bound to file a suit within three years from the date on which each item of the amount spent by him was paid. Even then the whole of the suit would not be time-barred since the suit was filed on July 13, 1935, and those amounts, if any, which were spent by the plaintiff after July 13, 1932, would be in time. The ASsistant Judge, however, has held that the plaintiff was a trustee, and as the suit was filed by a trustee to recover the advances made by him to meet the expenses of the trust during his trusteeship, the suit was governed by the residuary Article 120 and the period began to run from the time he ceased to be a trustee.