Limitation and trust principles: deposited Government securities fell under Article 145, while Section 10 trust protection was unavailable.

Section 10 of the Limitation Act applies only where property is vested in trust for a specifically defined purpose, and a suit seeks to follow that property or its proceeds in the trustee's hands; mere custody or security arrangements are insufficient. On the stated facts, Government promissory notes were held as security for service and not proved to be subject to a trust requiring return in specie, so Section 10 did not save the claim. For limitation, Article 145 governed recovery of property deposited with a depositary, running from the date of deposit; the transaction was treated as a deposit of securities, and the heirs of the original depositary were also within that description. Article 49 was displaced, and the suit was within time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was saved from limitation under Section 10 of the Limitation Act on the footing that the Government promissory notes were vested in trust for a specific purpose. (ii) Whether the suit was governed by Article 145 of the Limitation Act, or instead by Article 49.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was saved from limitation under Section 10 of the Limitation Act on the footing that the Government promissory notes were vested in trust for a specific purpose.

Analysis: Section 10 applies only where property has become vested in trust for a specific purpose and the suit is to follow that property or its proceeds in the trustee's hands. Mere custody, control, or management is insufficient; there must be a trust involving vesting of the property in the trustee for an actually and specifically defined purpose. On the facts, the notes were given as security for service and there was no satisfactory basis for concluding that they were held on a trust requiring their return in specie to the plaintiff's estate when the service ended. The alleged further condition was not proved with certainty and could not be inferred merely from the surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion: Section 10 of the Limitation Act did not apply, and the suit was not saved on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was governed by Article 145 of the Limitation Act, or instead by Article 49.

Analysis: Article 145 was treated as governing suits for recovery of property deposited with a depositary, the limitation running from the date of deposit. The expression "depositary" was construed broadly in ordinary legal usage, and the transaction here was treated as a deposit of Government securities kept intact as security, not as a mere loan or transfer of ownership. The death of the original depositary did not alter the character of the transaction for limitation purposes, and the heirs succeeding to the estate of the original depositary could still be treated as depositaries for the purposes of the article. Article 49 was therefore displaced.

Conclusion: Article 145 of the Limitation Act applied, not Article 49, and the suit was within time.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the question of limitation, and the decree in favour of the plaintiffs was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 10 of the Limitation Act applies only where there is a proved trust with property vested for a specifically defined purpose, while Article 145 applies to recovery of deposited property even against heirs of the original depositary, with limitation running from the deposit itself.

---