Limitation for bailment claims: suit for return of ornaments used in a religious procession fell under implied contract and was time-barred.

Ornaments entrusted for use in a Ram Lila procession were treated as a loan and bailment, not a deposit. Article 145 of the Limitation Act did not apply because the claim was not for recovery of moveable property deposited or pawned, and Article 49 also did not apply because the property was not wrongfully taken, injured or detained; it had been stolen from the defendant's possession. The bailee was subject to an implied contract to return the goods when the purpose ended, or within a reasonable time thereafter. As no specific article governed the claim, Article 115 applied to the suit for breach of implied contract, with the result that the action was barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit for recovery of the value of ornaments entrusted for use in a religious procession was governed by Article 145, Article 49 or Article 115 of the Limitation Act, and whether it was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The ornaments were handed over for use in the Ram Lila procession, so the transaction was held to be a loan and a bailment, not a deposit. Article 145, which applies to suits for recovery of moveable property deposited or pawned, was therefore inapplicable. Article 49 was also inapplicable because the property had not been wrongfully taken, injured or detained; it had been stolen from the defendant's possession. The parties were bound by an implied contract arising from the bailment to return the goods when the purpose was accomplished, and under the Contract Act the bailee had to return the goods within a reasonable time after the purpose ended. In the absence of any specific article, Article 115 applied as the suit was one for compensation for breach of an implied contract.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation under Article 115 of the Limitation Act, and the appeal succeeded.

---