BHURABHAI JAMNADAS Vs. BAI RUXMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection was raised by the Honourable Mr Gokaldas that under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act no second appeal lay, but it appears to me clear that this is a "suit relating to a trust" within the meaning of Art. 18 of Schedule II of the Act, so that a second appeal is competent.

(2.) The only other question debated is whether, as the first Court held, the suit falls under Section 10 of the Limitation Act and so is within time, or whether, as the lower appeal Court has decided, the suit does not fall under this section, in which case it would admittedly be barred by time.

(3.) Section 10 of the Limitation Act requires as conditions precedent to its applicability, first, that the suit should be against a person in whom property has become vested in trust for a specific purpose or against his legal representatives or assigns, and, secondly, that the suit should be for the purpose of following such property in his or their hands. The question is whether the present suit answers both these requirements. That will primarily depend upon the facts of the case, and upon the findings of the lower appeal Court, which we must accept in second appeal. I take it that the main facts found are that a sum of Rs. 366, being the amount of the female plaintiffs palla or dowry was, on the occasion of her betrothal to the male plaintiff, made over by the male plaintiff's father to the keeping of the lady's father, Jagjivan, as a fund constituting her palla in accordance with the usual practice prevailing in the caste; and that this fund has been misappropriated either by the original trustee or after his death by his successive legal representatives, his deceased son, or that son's widow, the present defendant.