Dishonoured cheque and limitation: original advance barred, but timely cheque claim recoverable from estate representatives.

A dishonoured cheque does not, by itself, amount to an acknowledgment of liability or part payment under the Limitation Act, 1908, so the claim on the original advance was barred by limitation. Recovery against the estate of a religious institution was also unavailable because the borrowing was not shown to have been made for legal necessity or for a purpose binding on the estate. However, the alternative claim on the dishonoured cheques accrued on issue and dishonour, was filed within three years, and could be enforced against defendants who had intermeddled with the deceased's assets and stood as executors de son tort. The appeal succeeded only on that limited cheque claim, with a decree for the amount and interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim for Rs. 35,000 on the original advance was saved from limitation by the later cheques and acknowledgments; (ii) Whether the plaintiff could recover the amount from the estate of the religious institution; (iii) Whether the alternative claim for Rs. 20,000 on the dishonoured cheques was within limitation and recoverable from the defendants representing the estate.

Issue (i): Whether the claim for Rs. 35,000 on the original advance was saved from limitation by the later cheques and acknowledgments.

Analysis: A dishonoured cheque does not by itself amount to an acknowledgment of liability or to part payment within the meaning of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908. A cheque may operate as conditional satisfaction when delivered and accepted, but if it is dishonoured the original debt revives and limitation runs from the ordinary period.

Conclusion: The claim for Rs. 35,000 on the original debt was barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff could recover the amount from the estate of the religious institution.

Analysis: The borrowing was not shown to have been made for a purpose binding on the estate. A shebait or trustee can charge the estate only where there is legal necessity or benefit to the estate, and the power is confined to protective purposes. No existing necessity for incurring the debt was established.

Conclusion: Recovery against the estate of the institution was not permissible.

Issue (iii): Whether the alternative claim for Rs. 20,000 on the dishonoured cheques was within limitation and recoverable from the defendants representing the estate.

Analysis: The cause of action on the four cheques arose on the date they were issued and dishonoured, and the suit was filed within three years thereafter. The defendants who had intermeddled with the deceased's assets and assumed the position of trustees were liable as executors de son tort to satisfy the claim out of the estate in their possession.

Conclusion: The alternative claim for Rs. 20,000 was within limitation and recoverable against the defendants as representatives of the estate.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of the alternative cheque claim, and the dismissal was set aside in part with a decree for Rs. 20,000 and interest against the defendants representing the estate.

---