TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules dishonored cheques not part payment, grants decree for Rs. 20,000. Executors de son tort liable.</h1> <h3>Chintaman Dhundiraj Versus Sadguru Narayan Maharaj Datta Sansthan and Ors.</h3> Chintaman Dhundiraj Versus Sadguru Narayan Maharaj Datta Sansthan and Ors. - TMI Issues:1. Limitation period for the claim of Rs. 35,000 advanced by the plaintiff.2. Validity of the claim for Rs. 20,000 based on dishonored cheques.3. Entitlement to a decree against the estate of defendant 1.4. Status of defendants 2 to 10 as legal representatives of Shri Narayan Maharaj.Analysis:Issue 1:The plaintiff filed a suit claiming Rs. 35,000 advanced on 12-7-1939, contending that the acknowledgment of liability through cheques dated 25-9-1942 and 10-11-1944 kept the claim within the limitation period. However, the court held that a dishonored cheque cannot be considered as part payment under the Limitation Act. Referring to a Calcutta High Court judgment, it was clarified that a dishonored cheque does not fulfill the requirements of Section 20, Limitation Act. Thus, the claim for Rs. 35,000 was deemed time-barred.Issue 2:Although the claim for Rs. 35,000 was time-barred, the plaintiff also claimed Rs. 20,000 based on four dishonored cheques dated 10-11-1944. The court found this claim to be within the limitation period and valid. The plaintiff's suit demanded Rs. 20,000 from the defendants, representing the amount of the dishonored cheques, and the cause of action for this claim arose on the date of dishonor. Consequently, the court granted a decree in favor of the plaintiff for Rs. 20,000.Issue 3:The plaintiff sought a decree against the estate of defendant 1, arguing that the debt incurred by Shri Narayan Maharaj was for the benefit of the institution. However, the court rejected this claim, stating that there was no evidence to suggest that the money was borrowed for purposes binding upon the estate of defendant 1. It was observed that Narayan Maharaj appeared to have undertaken a personal liability, and there was no indication of legal necessity or benefit to the estate for borrowing the money. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree against the estate of defendant 1.Issue 4:Regarding the status of defendants 2 to 10 as legal representatives of Shri Narayan Maharaj, the court noted that they were practically executors de son tort, having intermeddled with the assets of Shri Narayan Maharaj. The court agreed with the trial judge's assessment that defendants 2 to 10 should be considered as executors de son tort and held liable to satisfy the plaintiff's claim out of any estate in their possession.In conclusion, the court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial judge's decree and granting a decree in favor of the plaintiff for Rs. 20,000 with interest against defendants 2 to 10 as representatives of Shri Narayan Maharaj's estate. The plaintiff was also awarded costs in proportion to his success in both courts from defendants 2 to 10.
TaxTMI 