Express trust requirement under Section 10 Limitation Act rejected; constructive or fiduciary duties were not enough to bar the suit.

Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 applies only where property is vested in an express trustee for a specific purpose. A constructive, resulting, or merely fiduciary obligation is insufficient. On the facts, the defendant's retention of the shares after the decree did not create an express trust requiring holding for transfer, and the decree declaring the plaintiffs' ownership did not by itself impose such a trust. The defendant was therefore not an express trustee, so Section 10 did not bar the suit on limitation grounds. The decree was accordingly in favour of the plaintiffs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendant held the shares as an express trustee for a specific purpose so that Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 would bar no suit for recovery or declaration.

Analysis: Section 10 applies only where property has become vested in trust for a specific purpose and the trustee is an express trustee in the strict sense. A constructive or resulting trust, or a fiduciary obligation treated as trust-like under the Indian Trusts Act, is not enough. The decree declaring the plaintiffs to be owners of the shares did not create a trust requiring the defendant to hold the shares for a specific purpose of transfer. At most, after the decree, the defendant retained only a constructive fiduciary obligation arising from the plaintiffs' beneficial ownership, which did not attract Section 10.

Conclusion: Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 did not apply, because the defendant was not an express trustee.

Final Conclusion: The claim was not barred by limitation on the footing of express trust, and the decree went in favour of the plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 applies only to express trusts for a specific purpose and not to mere constructive or fiduciary obligations.

---