TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1930 (4) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppears that he made some attempts to recover the stolen articles. However, on 27th February 1928, the defendant made a statement in which he denied liability for the return of the ornaments, and the plaintiff filed the present suit on 5th May 1928. In this second appeal we have only to consider whether the suit is or is not within limitation. In order to determine this question we have to decide the nature of the transaction. The lower Court has found that it was a deposit and that Art. 145, Sch. 1, Lim. Act, applies to the case. Art. 145 deals with a suit against a depository or pawnee to recover moveable property deposited or pawned, and the period of limitation is thirty years from the date of the deposit or pawn. The word " deposit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of a loan, The transaction that we have to consider is a loan. The plaintiff lent the defendant these ornaments to be used by the latter in a religious procession. There was no question of trust or quasi trust. It was a mere loan for the benefit of the borrower and in my opinion Art. 145 has no application. 2. I am equally certain that Art. 49 need not be considered. This article provides for a case where the property has been wrongfully taken or injured or wrongfully detained. The property was not wrongfully taken, it was not injured nor was it detained by the defendant, because it was stolen from his possession before he had an opportunity of returning it. This article, though pleaded in the first Court, was given up in the Court below. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if I were required to find what was a reasonable time for these articles to be returned, supposing that they had not been lost and that the defendant was in a position to return them, I should say that that reasonable time was when the lender asked for the articles after the purpose for which they had been lent had been accomplished. The defendant reported to the police the theft of the articles on 27th October 1924, and this may be taken for the purposes of limitation as the date when the defendant should under his implied contract have returned the articles to the plaintiff. In my opinion the plaintiff had a period of three years from that date to bring a suit either for the return of the articles or for compensation. He cannot rely on t....