TALLAPADI SURYANARAYANA Vs. LAGUDU SANYASULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The trial Court dismissed the suit. In appeal, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Thus this second Appeal.

(2.) The respondent laid the suit on November 13, 1978 for a specified sum of money contending that he entrusted a gold jewel weighing five tolas to the appellant to secure money and he promised to return the same within two months thereafter. Inspite of several demands, it was not returned. He also got issued a notice. Ex.A.1 on June 25, 1978 for which the appellant issued a reply Ex.A.2 dated July 2, 1978 refusing to return the jewel entrusted to him. The trial Court held that the entrustment was made in 1975 and it was to be returned within two months thereafter and since the suit was not filed within three years thereafter, the suit is barred by limitation. In appeal the appellate court did not agree with the trial Court and held that the appropriate article of limitation Act that would apply is Article 91(b) and applying that Article, the suit has been decreed.

(3.) Sri V.Jagannadha Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the lower Appellate Court is clearly in error in applying Article 91(b) of the Limitation Act. For application of Article 91(b) he contends that there must be proof of entrustment and wrongful refusal of delivery of possession thereof by the bailee and unless these findings are given Article 91(b) has no application. Though the respondent has been served, he is not appearing either in person or through a counsel.