KAIKHUSROO MANEKSHAH TALYARKHAN Vs. GANGADAS DWARKADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main facts in this suit are not in dispute and raise a short but interesting question under the Indian Limitation Act.

(2.) One Dubash died in Bombay, in the year 1921, leaving a will of which he appointed five persons to be the executors and trustees. He left considerable moveable and immoveable property including Government Promissory Loan Notes and Port Trust Bonds of the aggregate value of over five lakhs of rupees. The will was proved by some of the executors, and they took charge of the estate. In the course of the administration of the estate, they decided to get the Government Promissory Notes and Port Trust Bonds renewed after recovering the interest due thereon, and then to divide the same among the heirs. For this purpose they handed over these securities and bonds to one Commissariat, who was a sharebroker. The latter from time to time returned to the executors some of these securities of the face value of over Rs. 2,19,000 duly renewed together with the amount of interest due thereon. He failed to return the rest including Port Trust Bonds of the face value of Rs, 37,500 in spite of repeated demands. It is common ground that among the Port Trust Bon(sic) which Commissariat failed to return are the three bonds in this suit.

(3.) In the meanwhile a suit was brought in this Court by two of the heirs of the deceased for administration of the estate, and a receiver was appointed. By orders made subsequently from time to time, the present Court Receiver was brought on record of that suit in place of the original receiver. In August, 1925, Messrs. Mulla and Mulla on behalf of the executors lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police to the effect that they had reason to suspect that Commissariat, who in the meanwhile had absconded from Bombay, had committed breaches of trust after forging the endorsements and signatures on some of the securities entrusted to him by the executors, and the police started an investigation in the matter. There is voluminous correspondence before me between May 13, 1925, a June, 20, 1925, which shows that the executors were leaving no stone unturned to discover the existence of the property which they had lost, and it was after they failed that they made this complaint to the police in August, 1925. The executors had some reason to think that some of these properties were lodged by Commissariat in his own account with the P. & 0. Banking Corporation, and they approached the Corporation on September 5, 192,5; and the latter, on September 11, 1925, or thereabouts, informed them that the Port Trust Bonds in suit and some other securities were handed over to them by Commissariat to reduce his personal liability to the Corporation. The police, on this information being supplied to them, obtained a list from the Corporation on September 11, 1925. That list shows that the bonds in suit were handed over by Commissariat to the Corporation, and the Corporation had subsequently made them over to the Bank of India. The Bank of India, when approached, admitted having held these bonds, but informed the plaintiff's attorneys that they had parted with them in favour of Chaganlal Javeri & Co. Enquiries were continued, and Chaganlal Javeri admitted having obtained the bonds in due course of business, but stated that he had sold them to one Ramdas Gangadas. All attempts of the executors to trace the said Ramdas Gangadas were unsuccessful, and all that they could do was to persist in their enquiries and call upon the police to pursue their investigation, which they did.