SMT URMILA DEBI Vs. SREE SREE BAIDYANATH JEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question in this appeal is whether the action is barred by limitation. It is important in this connexion to notice the claim of the plain, tiff who is the respondent to this appeal. Clause (b) of the relief portion of the claim is to this effect: On adjudication as above let a decree for delivery of the war bonds in suit or their substitutes, if any, to the plaintiff be passed against the defendants, or, in the alternative, a decree for Rs. 4200 being the value of the said war bonds be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in case the delivery of the war bonds or their substitutes cannot be had.

(2.) Its phraseology may be cumbersome but it is perfectly clear that it is an action in detinue. I do not think there can be any serious dispute that Art. 48, Lim. Act, applies.

(3.) The facts briefly are these. The plaintiff is the present high priest of a temple. The defendant is the widow of Umeshanand Ojha who was the priest up to the year 1921, he having died on 12 April of that year. He left a will, probate of which was granted to the widow (defendant 1) who is the appellant in this appeal. Amongst the property which was claimed to be the property of her deceased husband were the war bonds in suit, and one of the defences to the action was that these war bonds had been appropriated against the maintenance allowance to which the late high priest was entitled, under a scheme of management which was the subject-matter of a decree passed by the Officiating District Judge of Burdwan in 1902. Having regard to the view that I take of the facts of the case it is perhaps unnecessary to go into the question of this defence of appropriation in detail. Under the order of the District Judge, the high priest was entitled to maintenance for himself and his family. A committee of management was appointed under this order and by a subsequent order of this committee the maintenance was not to exceed the sum of Rs. 5 per day. It would appear that the high priest had not drawn this sum for a number of years and then shortly after the purchase of the bonds, admittedly out of the temple funds, had appropriated them against his arrears of maintenance.