Fraud claims survive against an estate where the statutory exception covers only personal injuries, with damages limited to concealed loss.

A fraud-based pecuniary claim was held to survive against a deceased wrongdoer's estate because the statutory exception to actio personalis moritur cum persona was confined to personal injuries, not property loss. The suit was also treated as in time, since limitation ran from discovery of the fraud, and earlier company liquidation proceedings did not extinguish the independent tort claim. Liability arose only from the agent's false receipts used to conceal the embezzlement, so recoverable damages were limited to the loss proximately caused by that concealment. The amount recoverable required further inquiry, and the matter was remitted for quantification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cause of action for fraud survived against the estate of the deceased wrongdoer under the statutory exception to the common-law maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona. (ii) Whether the claim for damages was barred by limitation or by prior proceedings in company liquidation. (iii) Whether the wrongful concealment by the agent gave rise to recoverable damages, and if so, what loss was recoverable.

Issue (i): Whether the cause of action for fraud survived against the estate of the deceased wrongdoer under the statutory exception to the common-law maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona.

Analysis: The common-law rule does not survive in India where the statutory provision governing survivorship of claims against executors and administrators controls the field. The exception in the statute was construed as referring to injuries personal to the person, as distinguished from injuries to property. Fraud causing pecuniary loss to the company was not treated as a personal injury of the kind excluded by the statute. The deceased wrongdoer would have been liable if alive, and his estate was not exempt merely because the wrong was committed by an agent in the course of employment.

Conclusion: The cause of action survived against the estate, and the estate was liable in principle.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for damages was barred by limitation or by prior proceedings in company liquidation.

Analysis: The suit was treated as one founded on fraud, so limitation ran from discovery of the fraud and not from the date of the wrongful acts. The company and its liquidators were found not to have knowledge until much later, and the suit was within time. The prior company proceedings were treated as special liquidation proceedings and not as an adjudication that extinguished the independent tort claim against the present defendants.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation and was not defeated by the earlier company proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether the wrongful concealment by the agent gave rise to recoverable damages, and if so, what loss was recoverable.

Analysis: The conspiracy allegation was not proved. Liability rested only on the later act of issuing false receipts to conceal an already completed embezzlement. Damages were therefore confined to the loss proximately caused by that concealment, namely the amount that could have been recovered had the fraud been discovered in time. Since the record did not establish with certainty what amount would have been recoverable, the question of quantification required further inquiry by the court below.

Conclusion: Liability was established, but the quantum of recoverable damages had to be determined on remand.

Final Conclusion: The defendants' liability was upheld in principle, but the matter was sent back for a finding on the amount, if any, that could have been recovered from the wrongdoer at the relevant time.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for fraud-based pecuniary loss survives against a deceased wrongdoer's estate where the statutory exception is confined to personal injuries, and damages are limited to the loss proximately caused by the wrongful concealment itself.

---