AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 89

36.5. Article 70.- Article 70 reads as unde.-

"70. To recover movable property deposited or pawned from a depositary or pawnee.

Three years.

The date of refusal after demand."

It corresponds to Article 145 of the Act 1908, which was as under:-

"145. Against a depository or pawnee to recover movable property deposited or pawned.

Thirty years.

The date of the deposit or Pawn."

This is identical with Article 145 of the 1877 Act. Article 7 of the Act of 1871 was as under:

"147. Against a depository or pawnee to recover movable property deposited or pawned.

Three years.

The date of the deposit or pawn unless where an acknowledgement of the title of the depositor or pawner, or of his right of redemption, has before the expiration of the prescribed signed by the depositary, or pawnee, or some person claiming under him, and in such case, date of the acknowldegement."

In the present Act, the period is three years, but it is to be computed from the date of refusal after demand.

36.5. Law Commission's Report.- The Law Commission, in its Report on the Act of 1908,1 observed that in Article 145 of that Act it would be make appropriate to make the date of refusal after demand as the starting point of limitation and that the period should be fixed as three years from that date. The recommendation has been accepted in Article 70 of the present Act, enacted in place of Article 145 of the Act of 1908.

1. Law Commission, 3rd Report (Limitation Act, 1908), para. 121.

36.6. Mon.-whether movable proper.-conflict.- There is some diversity of views as to the expression "movable property" as occurring in the article. One view is that money is "movable property"1 for the purposes of this article. A contrary view has, however, been taken by some High Courts2. In an Allahabad case, the main relief claimed by the plaintiffs was the recovery of certain sum which represented the price of goods deposited, and interest on the same. It was held that such a suit could not be described to be a suit for the recovery of "specific movable property deposited or pawned" within Article 145 of the Act of 1908.

The expression "movable property" has been defined in various Central Acts. Thus, section 22 of the Indian Penal Code restricts the expression "movable property" to corporeal property, that is, property which might be perceived by the senses. Section 3(36) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, defines "movable property" as meaning property of every description, except immovable property.

The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not define the term at all. Section 2(9) of the Registration Act, 1908 makes a special provision for including certain items as a species of movable property. Section 82 of the Companies Act, 1956 makes a share or other interest of any member in a company to be a "movable property". None of these Acts, however, specifically provides that money is movable property.

1. (a) Central Warehousing Corpn., New Delhi v. Central Bank of India, Hyderabad, AIR 1974 AP 8;

(b) Ahilyamba v. Subramania, AIR 1954 Mad 101;

(c) Lala Govind v. Chairman, 6 CLJ 535.

2. (a) Khairul Basheer v. Thanna La!, AIR 1957 All 553; (b) Balakrishna v. Narayanswami, ILR 37 Mad 175.

36.7. No change needed.- Ordinarily such a conflict of views would need to be attended to. But we note that in the Andhra Pradesh case, this was only one of the grounds of decision, and the decision was based on a number of alternative grounds. We do not therefore consider it necessary to recommend any change in the wording of the article. We may add that the recent trend is not to include money in this article.

36.8. Article 71.- Article 71 reads as unde.-

"71. To recover movable property deposited or pawned, and afterwards bought from the depositary or pawnee for a valuable consideration.

Three years.

When the sale becomes known to the plaintiff."

It corresponds to the latter half of Article 48A of the Act of 1908. This splitting up of the article was done on the recommendation of the Law Commission in its Report on the Act of 1908.1

Article 48A of 'that act was as unde.-

"48A. To recover movable property conveyed or bequeathed in trust, deposited or pawned, and afterwards bought from the trustee depositary or pawnee for a valuable consideration.

Three years.

When the sale becomes known to the plaintiff."

In Article 133 of the Act of 1877, the starting point was the date of the purchase and the period prescribed was 12 years.

In the Act of 1871, Article 133 reads as unde.-

"48A. To recover movable property conveyed in trust, deposited or pawned and afterwards bought from the trustee, depositary or pawnee, in good faith and for value.

Three years.

The date of the purchase."

The article needs no change.

1. Law Commission of India, 3rd Report (Limitation Act, 1908), para. 121.



The Limitation Act, 1963 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys