MATHURADAS DAMODARDAS Vs. VANDRAWANDAS SUNDERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After summarising the pleadings, I read the issues which are as follows: (1) Whether the transfer of the Government notes made to defendants 1 and 2 by Vajibai was on such trust as is alleged in para. 2 of the plaint? (2) Whether Vajibai became entitled to the said notes under the will of her husband Vanmalidas, or whether the said notes were investments of savings of property bequeathed to her by her husband? (3) Whether the said notes were not Vajibai's absolute property? (4) Whether the plaintiffs became entitled to the said notes on Vajibai's death? (5) Whether the plaintiffs took the said notes by virtue of the gift-over under the will of the said Vanmalidas as alleged in para. 8 of the plaint? (6) Whether the gift-over was a valid gift? (7) Can the plaintiffs take under the said gift over in view of the fact that both Kesserbai and Damodar predeceased Vajibai? (8) Whether the said notes wore not transferred to the names of defendants upon trust for Varjivan Sundarji and Purbhudas Sundarji and for their sole and absolute use and benefit? (9) Whether plaintiffs claim is not barred by limitation? (10) Whether any decree can be made in plaintiffs favour without letters of administration to Vanmalidas, Kesserbai, Damodar and Vajibai, or any of them and which? (11) The general issue. (12) Whether, if the trust alleged in para. 2 of the plaint is not proved, the defendants 1 and 2 did not hold the said notes on a resulting trust for Vajibai?

(2.) Though twelve issues have thus been raised, the only questions argued have been (a) the question of fact as to who were the beneficiaries of the trust created by Vaji, and (6) the question of law as to the applicability or inapplicability of Section 10 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) The suit has led to an interesting argument on the ambit of Section 10 of the Limitation Act, but before discussing that question it is necessary to solve the not less difficult question of fact as to the objects of the trust. In the first place it is admitted that these notes for Rs. 7,000 were the subject of a trust created by Vaji, but there is direct conflict between the parties as to the terms of the trust. According to the plaintiffs, who arc admittedly the heirs of Vaji, the beneficiary of the trust was Vaji herself, and the object or purpose of the trust was that the two trustees might draw the accruing interest on behalf of Vaji and so save her from the necessity of appearing in the business. According to the defendant-by which term I allude throughout to the first defendant, who alone contests the suit-the beneficiaries of the trust were Varjivan and Parbhu, sons of Sundarji, Varjivan being paralysed and Parbhu being of weak intellect.