TMI Blog1940 (9) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants is well-founded and accordingly it has not been necessary for them to go into the other matters above referred to. In order to deal with the question of limitation it is necessary to state the following facts: 2. On 18th September 1924, Abdul Rahim died intestate at Bombay leaving him surviving a widow, Hawabai, three sons and three unmarried daughters. All his children were then minors. According to the law by which he was governed, his three infant sons became entitled to his estate in equal shares subject to the right of his widow to maintenance pending re-marriage or death, and to the rights of his daughters to maintenance until marriage or death, and to their marriage expenses. On 17th March 1925, the widow of Abdul Rahim (Hawabai), having been duly empowered by the High Court, filed a petition in the High Court for the grant to her of letters of administration to the estate of her deceased husband for the use and benefit of his three minor sons and limited to the period of minority of any of them. It was stated in the schedule to the petition that the moveable and immovable properties of Abdul Rahim were valued at ₹ 2,75,791 and for the purposes of probate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned his majority. 4. On 24th March 1932 an order was made by the High Court that the Court should assign the administration bond to the plaintiff, his heirs, executors or administrators, and it was further ordered that on such assignment the plaintiff, his heirs, executors or administrators should be entitled to sue on the bond in his or their name or names as if the same had been originally given to him or them, and should be entitled to recover thereon as trustee or trustees for all persons interested the full amount recoverable in respect of any breach thereof. By a deed of assignment dated 14th August 1932 certain officers of the Court appointed for that purpose by an order of the Chief Justice purported to assign the bond to the plaintiff (the present respondent) to hold the same unto the assignee absolutely with all such powers, rights and remedies as are now subsisting thereon. The assignment was effected Under Section 292, Succession Act of 1925, which is in these terms: The Court may, on application made by petition and on being satisfied that the engagement of any such bond has not been kept, and upon such terms as to security, or providing that the money received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6) 23 AIR 1936 Bom 363 That case related to a similar bond, similarly assigned, and the appellate Court, Sir John Beaumont C.J., and Bangnekar J., overruling Blackwell J., decided that the defence of limitation Under Article 68, Limitation Act, was not available. In that case as in the present the beneficiaries at the date of the grant of letters of administration were infants, and in other respects the facts are not distinguishable from those in the present case. The question, therefore, arises whether the decision in Manubhai Chunilal v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd ('36) 23 AIR 1936 Bom 363 is or is not correct. Article 68, Limitation Act, 1908, is one of a series of 183 articles in a schedule which relate to the limitation of suits, appeals and applications. The articles are introduced by Section 3 in the following words: Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 25 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the period of limitation prescribed therefore by Schedule 1 shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. 7. The provision contained in Article 68 is to the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed to affect a pure question of construction. In the present case, however, it may be observed that an administration bond is as often assigned when persons of full age are concerned as when the beneficiaries are all of them infants and that such a bond is of the nature of an additional security taken by the Court for the benefit of the beneficiaries. If a right of action under the bond become statute barred by the operation of Article 68, Limitation Act, that does not affect the rights of the benefices against the administrator. While making these observations their Lordships think it right to repeat that mere considerations of hardship in such a case should not be taken into account. 10. In Manubhai Chunilal v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd ('36) 23 AIR 1936 Bom 363 Blackwell J. took the view that the bond being within the definition in the Limitation Act and the action being on a bond subject to a condition, time began to run from the last date on which the condition was broken and no action could therefore be brought after the expiration of three years. In coming to this conclusion, he followed the decision of the appellate Court of Rangoon in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consequence of that view was said to be that the condition was not broken within the meaning of Article 68 until the plaintiff attained his majority which was less than three years before the suit was filed. In other words, the death of the administrator was held not to put an end to his liability as regards future events. Their Lordships cannot agree. An administrator of an intestate is merely the officer of the Court in whom the deceased himself has reposed no trust. On the death of the former the estate of the intestate does not pass to his heirs or representatives and no authority whatever can be transmitted by him, nor has anyone claiming under him any right to interfere with or to complete the administration of the property of the intestate. The office comes to an end on death (if not before) and the course which should be taken when an administrator dies is to obtain a grant of administration de bonis non and the person to whom such grant is made will be entitled to take possession of the property. 13. It therefore seems to their Lordships impossible to hold that the administratrix in the present case could possibly have been guilty of any default or misconduct in relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary to add that it had obviously nothing to do with the English period of limitation as regards the enforcement of such a bond which was 20 years from the breach of the condition. It seems to their Lordships that the words used in Section 292, Succession Act, like those used in Section 83, Court of Probate Act, 1857, are far from assisting the contention that a new cause of action arises upon the assignment. The bond is assigned to a person who is thereupon to be entitled to sue on the bond in his own name as if the same had been originally given to him and he is to be entitled to recover thereon ... the full amount recoverable in respect of any breach thereof.'' These sentences do not in the least support the view that a fresh cause of action arises and that therefore the condition of the bond is not broken for the purposes of the Limitation Act until the date of the assignment. The judgments of the appellate Court of Rangoon in 1 Rang 4633 and of Black well J., in Manubhai Chunilal v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd ('36) 23 AIR 1936 Bom 363 are in the opinion of their Lordships correct and the decision of the appellate Court in the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
