Representative suit bar and limitation rules applied to idol accounts after unconditional withdrawal of the earlier claim.

A representative suit by a sebait on behalf of an idol was held subject to the bar under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Civil P.C. because an earlier suit for the same accounts had been expressly and unconditionally withdrawn without leave to sue again, so the renewed claim for accounts for 15 November 1906 to 14 May 1921 was barred. The claim for accounts prior to 6 February 1921 was also held time-barred under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, as the monies were treated as money received for the idol's benefit and the plaintiff failed to prove an express trust. Section 10 of the Limitation Act did not apply because the sebait was not a trustee in the technical sense required.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the claim for rendition of accounts for the period 15 November 1906 to 14 May 1921 was barred by the earlier unconditional withdrawal under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Civil P.C.; (ii) whether the claim for accounts prior to 6 February 1921 was barred by limitation under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, and whether Section 10 of the Limitation Act applied on the footing of an express trust.

Issue (i): whether the claim for rendition of accounts for the period 15 November 1906 to 14 May 1921 was barred by the earlier unconditional withdrawal under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Civil P.C.

Analysis: The earlier suit for accounts, instituted on behalf of the idol through a sebait, included a claim for rendition of accounts for the relevant period. That claim was expressly and unconditionally withdrawn without permission to bring a fresh suit. The present suit, though framed by a sebait in his own name, was held to be representative in character and in substance a suit by the idol. In such circumstances, the earlier withdrawal operated as a statutory bar against a fresh suit on the same part of the claim.

Conclusion: The claim for accounts for the period 15 November 1906 to 14 May 1921 was barred under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Civil P.C.

Issue (ii): whether the claim for accounts prior to 6 February 1921 was barred by limitation under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, and whether Section 10 of the Limitation Act applied on the footing of an express trust.

Analysis: The monies collected by the defendants were treated as money received for the benefit of the idol, attracting Article 62 of the Limitation Act and a three-year period of limitation. The plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant was a person in whom property had become vested in trust for any specific purpose. The sebait was not regarded as a trustee in the technical sense required for Section 10 of the Limitation Act, and no express trust was proved.

Conclusion: The claim for accounts prior to 6 February 1921 was time-barred, and Section 10 of the Limitation Act did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree of the appellate court was set aside, and the preliminary decree of the trial court was restored, with costs to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A representative suit by a sebait on behalf of an idol is subject to the bar under Order 23, Rule 1(3) when an earlier identical claim has been unconditionally withdrawn, and a sebait is not an express trustee for the purpose of avoiding limitation under Section 10 of the Limitation Act.

---