BOOTAMAL versus UNION OF INDIA

UNION OF INDIA

(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)

Limitation-Suit ~ainst ca"ier for compensation for non-delivery-Starting point-If limitation start• from final refusal-Correspondence between parties, relevance of-Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908) Ari. 31.,

On August 5, 1947, the appellant booked two consigments by the N. W. Railway from Gujranwala, now in Pakistan, to Jagadhari. The consignments were not delivered and, on January 22, 1948, the appellant gave notice to the railway under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming the value cf the goods by way of compensation. It was stated in the notice that the cause of action had arisen on August 21 and 30, 1947, when delivery was refused. On December I, 1948, the railway informed the appellant that the consignments were still lying at Gujranwala and could be despatched on the appellant obtaining the necessary permits from the Pakistan authorities. On December 13, 1949, the appellant brought suit for compensation for non-delivery of the goods. The respondent contended that the suit was beyond time as it was not filed within one year from the time "when the goods ought to be delivered" as prescribed by art. 31 of the Llmitation Act.

Held, that the suit was barred by time. The words "when the goods ought to be delivered" in art. 31 bad to be given their strict grammatical meaning and equitable . consi-derations were out of place. Under art. 3~ limitation started on the expiry of the time fixed between the parties for delivery of the goods and in the absence of any such agreement the limitation started after reasonable time had elapoed on the expiry of which the delivery ought to have been made. The reasonable time wa• to be'determincd according to the circum-stances of each case. The view taken by some High Courts that time 1:-egan to run from the date when the railway finally refused to deliver was not correct ; where the Jegialaturc intended that time should run from the date of refusal it had used appropriate words in that connection. The starting point of limitation could not generally be affected by the conduct of the parties or by the corresponclance between them, unless it co.ntained an acknowledgment of liability by the carrier or showed something affecting the reasonable time In the present case delivery ought to have been made within five or six months, as is also indicated by the s, 80 notice iPvcn

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

by the appellant and the suit was filed more than year after tha expiry of that time.

Dominion o.f India v. Firm Aminchand Bholanath (F. B.) decided by Punjab High Court on May 2, 1956, approved.

Jugal Kishore v. The Great Indian Peninsular Railway ( 1923) I. L. R. 45 All. 43 ; Bengal and North Western Railway Company v. Maharajadhiraj Kameshwar Singh Bahadur, (1933) I. L. R. 12 Pat. 67, 77 ; .Tai Narain v. The Governor-Gentral of India, A. I. R. (1951) Cal. 462; and Governor-General in Oounr.il v. S. G. Ahmed, A. I. R. (1952) Nag. 77, disapproved.

Nagendranath v. Sure.Yh, A. I. R. (1932) P. C. 165 and Genr.ral Accident Fire and Life J ssurance Uorporation Limited v • .Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, A. I. R. (1941) P. C. 6, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 507 of 1960.

Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 19, 1958, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in R: F. A. No. 299 of 1951.

K. L. Gosain, R ... Ganapathy lyer and G. Gopal,a-kri8lman, for the appellant.

B. Sen and P. D. Menon, for the respondent.

· 1962. March 27. The Judgment of the Court waH delivered by

WANCHOO, J:-This appeal on certificate

granted by the Punjab High Court raises question as to the interpretation of Art. 31 of the Limitation Act. The appellant had brought suit. in forma pauperis for recovery of sum of ovQr Rs. 24,000/ · from the Union of India in connection with non-delivery of certain goods booked W:it.Q the railway. The appellant was trading in Gujrah wa.la,' which -is now in Pakistan, under the name and\style of G. M. Bootamal and Company and also un~er the name and style of Gopal Metal Ro1ling Mills anti Company he being the sole proprietor of both. On August 5~ 194-71 just before-the partition the appel1ant han~ed ove~ two consignments to t,h(1 North \Vestem

1962 Bootamat v. Uni·m nf India

anchoo J.

Bootamal y, UniQn af lni io wanchoo J.

Railway at Gujranwala for carriage to Jaga.dhari and . these consignments were booked on the same day by two railway receipts. The consignments however di<l not reach .Tagadha.ri. The appellant made inquiries and when no delivery was ma.de he made claim on the railway on November 30, 1947, for the price of the goods not delivered. Later, on January 22, 1948, the appellant gave notice to the railway under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in whici it was said that tho goods booked under the two railway receipts had not been delivered in spite of repeated reminders and demands from the officials concerned. It was further said that the value of the goods booked was Rs. 24,189/4/- and that the railway was liable for this loss which was due to the negligence of the railway. It wa.s further stated' that the cause of action a.rose on Augnst 21 and 30, 19!7 and on subsequent dates when the appellant met with refu3al. It ·was finally said that if the amount was not paid suit would be brought against the railway. It seems however that in spite of this notice correspondence went on between the appellant and the railway and on December 1, 1948, the railway informed the appellant that the two consignments were still lying at Gujranwala. and that their despatch had been withheld by the North Western Railway due to restrictions imposed by the Pakistan Government on export. The railway therefore requested the appellant to secure permit from the Chief Controller, Exports and Imports, Karachi and also from the Custodian of Evacuee Property West Punjab and to send the ea.me to the Station Master Gujranwala to enable the goods being sent to Jaga.dhari. The appellant was also told that in case he failed to produce the requisite permits the consignments would be disposed of in accordance with the law in force in Pakistan, and the railway administration would not be responsible for any loss, damage or destruction to the goods. '.J'flis seems to have been the end of the correspoq-

I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

dence between the railway and the appellant, and

the appellant brought the present suit on Decem-ber 13, 1949.

The suit was resisted by the Union of India

and number of defences were raised with which we are however not concerned in the present appeal. As many as seven issues were framed by the trial court, the most important being of limitation. The trial court found in favour of the appellant on all the issues including limitation and ga.ve him decree for Rs. 24,189/4/-. It however ordered the parties to bear their own costs.

·Thereupon there was an appeal by the respon-

dent to the High Court, and the main point pressed there was that the· suit as filed on December 13, 1949, was barred by limitation. Under Art. 31 of the Limitation Act time begins to run against carrier for compensation for non-delivery of or delay in delivering goods from th~ time "when the goods ought to be delivered". The question can-vassed in the High Court was the interpretation of . these words in Art. 31. It appears (that there had been difference of opinion in the High Court as to the meaning to be attached to these words in Art.31 and reference had been made to Full Bench in another case, namely, ·Dominion o.f. India v. Firm Aminchand Bholanath (C.A. 97of1949, decided on May 2, 19lf6). In that reference the Full Bench held that "the limitation under Art. 31 starts on the expiry of the time :fixed between the parties and in the absence of such agreement, the limitation starts on the expiry of reasonable time which is to be decided according to the circumstances of each case.'' The High Court therefore followed the view taken in that case and held after taking into account the circumstances prevailing in August 194 7 that the goods ·ought to have been delivered at the ~oat within five or six months of the bookinir and

1S6B BoolamaZ y, Union of India W1ncho1 J.

1962 Booiamt1l v. Union of India Wanohoo J•

therefore the suit was barred by limitation as it ~as. b~ought. in December 1949, the period of hm1tat10n bemg only one year. The High Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. It however ordered the parties to bear their costs. As the case involved substantial question of law the High Cour~ granted certificate to the appellant; and that 1s how the matter has come up befom us.

Article 31 reads as follows :-

Its interpretation has been the subject of number of decisions by various High Courts in India and the question that has been considered in these decisions is as to the time from which the period begins to run. Under the Article, the time begins to run "when tho goods ought to be delivered" and one should havo thought that there would be no difficulty in finding out the meaning of these words. Ordinarily, the words of statute have to be given their strict grammatical meaning and equitable consideration3 are out of place, particularly in pro-visions of law limiting the period of limitation for filing suits or legal proceedings. This was laid down by the Privy Council in t.wo decisions in

1 S.C.R.

N agerulraooth v .Suresh,C )and General Accident Fire and L·if A8surance Corporation Limit,ed v. J anmahomed .Abdul Rahim (2). In the first case the Privy Council observed that ''the fixation of periods of limitation must always be to some extent arbitrary ~nd may frequently result in hardship. . But in construing such provisions equitable considerations are out of pJil.ce, and the strict grammatical meaning of the words is the only safe guide". In the latter case it was observed that "a limitation Act ought to re-ceive such construction as the language in 'its plain meaning imports ............ Great hardship may occasionally be caused by statutes of limitation in cases of poverty, distress and ignorance of rights, yet the statutory rules must be enforced according to their ordinary meaning in these and in other like cases."Two lines of reasoning seem to have governed the decisions of various High Courts on tl\e inter-pretation of these words in the third column of Art. 31. The first is based on the consideration that it was for the railway to prove what time ought to be taken for the delivery of the goods and therefore limitation can only start when the railway says finalJy that it cannot deliver the goods. The second lino of reasoning seems to be based on the principle of estoppel and is to the effect that where the railway enters into correspondence and says that efforts are being made to trace the goods the railway would be estopped from pleading that the time be-gan to run from sometime anterior to the period be-fore the correspondence on the question came. to an end. It may however be noted that though the majority of the decisions follow these two lines of reasoning and hold·that time begins to run only when the railway finally refuses to deliver the goods, here and there dissentient note has also been struck. We shall consider some of these cases later.

(2) A.f.R. (1941) p.c. 60

{I) A.J.R, (1932) P.C. 165.

1962 Bootama' v. Union of India WanchooJ.

IBU •• Union of India WatrcliooJ.

Let us first see what these words in Art. 31 mean on a. plain grammatical construction. It would be noticed that Art. 31 as it now stands after the Limitation Act of 1877 and· 190S, governs two class of cases, namely, (i) where there has been no delive.ry of goods and (ii) whe.re there has been delay in delivering goods. In both class of cases the time begins to run from the date when the goods ought to be delivered. These words therefore in column three of the Article must have a. meaning which will apply equally to the two situations envi-saged in column one. Whether there has .been non-delivery or there has been delay in delivery, in either case limitation would run from the date when the goods ought to be delivered. Now it is not in dispute that if there is term in contra.ct of car-riage fixing when the goocl.s have to be delivered that would be the time "when the goods ought to be delivered" within the meaning of the words used in the third column of Art. 31. ·rhe difficulty however a.rises in that class of cases where there is no tern. in the contract of carriage, whether express or im-plied, from which the date on which the goods have to be delivered, can be inferred. It is in these cases that the question of interpretation of the words in the third column of Art. 3 l seriom!ly arises. But these words can only mean one thing whether it is case of late delivery or of non-delivery. Reading the words in their plain grammatical meaning they are in our opinion capable of only one interpreta-tion, namely, that they contemplate that the time would begin to run after reasonable period has elapsed on the expiry of which the delivery ought to have been made. The words "when the goods ought to be deliyered" oa,n only mean the re~sona­ble time taken (m the absence of any term m the contract from which the time can be inferred ex-pressly or impliedly) in the carriage of the goods from the place of despatch to the place of destina.-tiop. Take the ca.1e, where the cause of action is

1 S.C.R.

based on delay in delivering the goods. In such case the goods have been delivered and the claim is based on the delay caused in the delivery. Obvious-ly the question of delay can only be decided on the basis of what would be the reasonable time for the carriage of goods Irom the place of despatch to the place of destination. Any time taken over and above that would be case of delay. Therefore, when we consider the interpretation of these words in the third column with respect to the case of non-delivery, they must mea.n the samething, namely, the reasonable time taken for the carriage af goods from the place of despatch to the place of destina-tion. The view therefore taken by some of the High Courts that the time begirn:> from the date when the railway finally refuses ~o deliver cannot be correct, for the words in the third column of Art. 31 are incapable of beiug interpreted as meaning the final refusal of the carrier to deliver. We may in this connection compare the lang,uage used in the third ~olumn of Art. 31 with certain other articles of the Limitation Act which will show that where the legislature intended that time should run from the date of refusal it has used appropriate words in that connection. For. example, in Art. 18, which provides for suit for compensation against Govern-ment when the acquisition is not ·completed, the time begins to run from "the date of the refusal to complete". Similarly, in Art. 78 which provides for suit by the payee against the drawer of bill of exchange which has been dishonoured by non-accep-tance, time begins to run from''the date of the refu-sal to accept''. Again in Art. 131 which provides for suit to establish periodically recurring right, the limitation begins to run "when the plaintiff is first refused the enjoyment of the right''. Therefore, if the legislature intended that in case of non-deli-very, the limitation would start on the final refusal of the carrier to .deliver, E.juch case would have been provided for by a. separate article and we

Bootamal v.

(] nion of India Wanclroo J.

19•2 ~mol •• Uwion of India Wanchoo J.

would have found appropriate words in the third column thereof. The very fact that Art. 31 deals with both cases of non-delivery of goods and delay in delivering the goods shows that in either ca.ee the starting point of limitation is after reasonable time has elapsed for the carriage of goods from the place of despatch to the place of destination. The fact that what is reasonable time must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the further faot that the carrier may have to show eventually what is the reasonable time for carriage of goods would in our opinion make no difference to the interpreta-tion of the words used in the third column of Art. 31. Nor do wc think that their could be generally speaking any question of estoppel in the matter of the starting point of limitation because of any cor-respondence carried on between the carrier and the person whose goods are carried. But, undoubtedly, if the correspondence discloses anything which may amount to an acknowledgement of liability of the oarrier that will give fresh starting point of limi-tation. A' we have said already, the words ·in the third column refer to reasonable time taken for the carriage of goods from the place of despatch to the place of destination and this reasonable time gene-rally speaking cannot be affected by the subsequent conduct of the parties. We are therefore of opinion that the answer given by the Full Bench in the oase of Aminchand BhdanatJi, (supra) that "the limitation in such cases starts on the expiry of thii time fixed between the parties and in the absence of any such agreement the limitation starts of the expiry of reasonable time which is to be decidetl according to the circumstances of each oase," is correct.We shall now consider some of the represen-. ta.tive cases decided by High Courts in this connec-tion. In JWJal Ki8hore v. The. <be.at Indian Penin8'111.a Railway ([1]) it was observed that "when the X.I. Ra.ilway Company, by its own conduct made the (I) (1923) 1.L.R. 45 All. 43.

. I S.O.R. 1

plaintiff await the result of the inquiry, it is rather startling to find the plea of limitation raised in defence on its behalf". It was further observed that "the correspondence between the parties shows that the matter was being inquired into and that there was no refusal to deliver, up to well within year of the suit ; in the ciroumstances of the case we are unable to hold that the suit was instituted more than year from the expiry of reasonable tim_e within which the goods should have been deb· vered."

This decision seems to suggest that the mean-

ing of the relevant words in the third column is that limitation starts from the expiry of the reason-able time within which the goods should have been delivered. But it has taken into account the subse-quent conduct of the railway and the fact that there was Iio refusal to deliver the goods till much later. It was therefore held that as the suit was brought within one year of the final refusal to deliver, it was within time. With respect, it is rather diffi-cult to understand how the subsequent correspond-ence between the railway and the consignor or the consignee can make any difference to the starting point of limitation, when that correspondence only showed that the railway was trying to trace the goois. The period that might be taken in tracing the goods can have no relevance in determining the reasonable ~ime that is required for the carriage of the goods from the place of despatch to· the place of destination.

In Bengal, and North W e8~rn Railway Company v. Makarujadkiraj &meskwar Singh Bakadulr(1) it was held that "the defendants (j.e. Railway) by a. deliberate process of ignoring the plantiff's repea-ted requests for attention to his claim milled him into delaying his suit and it is not open to them

( l) (1933) l.L.R. 12 Pat. 67, 77.

198B Bootllmal

v~ Union •!India Wanchoo J,

1962 Boot1mal v, Union of India Wanchoo J,

now to contend that the suit has been brought too late." This case seems to be based on estoppe!. But here again we find it difficult to understand how the starting point of limitation under Art. 31 could be changed because the railway ignored the plaintiff's requests for attention to his claim.

In .J ai Narain v. 'l'he Go!'ernor-General of

India ([1]) it was held that "the time 'when the goods ought to be delivered' within the meaning of Art. 31 is not the time when they should have been deliver-ed in the normal course, at least in case where there is no time fixed for delivery, but tho time when they ought to Im deli vernd according to the sub-1mquent promises by tlw railway which informs the parties thri,t it i~ carrying on enquiries." With res-pect we, find it difficult to find how in the face of the clear words in the third column of Art. 31 the starting point of limitation or.n be changed because of the subsequent conduct of the railway, which informed. the consignor or consignee that it was making enquiries to trace the goods.

Finally in, Governor-General in Council v. S. G.

Ahmed('). it was held that "cannot be overlooked that for some time the railway authorities them-selves were hoping to deliver the remaining packages and were making inquiries all along the route ..... .. In such oases it is not fair to expect the plaintiff to rush to Court with suit without waiting for the result of the inquiries. Limitation oan therefore begin only when there was definite statement by the railway authorities that they were not in position to deliver the goods". With respect, this case seems to read in the third column as if the starting point of limitation is from the final refusal of the railway to deliver the goods, when the actual words eay that limitation starts from the time when the goods ought to be delivered i.e. in the absence of any term fixing the time in the' contract from (I) A.J.R. (1951) Cal. 462. (2) A.Lil. (~2) Na1. 77.

I '1 l S.C.R. ' SUPREME COURT REPORTS

the expiry of the reasonable time taken for carriage from the place of despatch to the place of desti-nation.

It was however urged for the appellant that

even though the won.ls in the third column plainly mean that the time starts when the reasonable period which may be taken for the carriage of the goods from the place of despatch to the place of destina-tion expires, the subsequent conduct of the railway as disclosed in the correspondence that might pass between the railway and the consignor or the con-signee, might have bearing on this reasonable time. Now if the correspon~ence is only about tracing the goods that would not be meterial in considering the yuestion as to when the goods ought to he.ve been delivered. On the other hand if the. corres-pondence discloses material which might throw light on the question of determining the reasonable time for the carriage of the goods from the place of des-patch to the place of destination, then it may be open to the court to take into account the correspondence. Further, if there is anything in the correspondence which has bearing on the question of reasonable time and the railway wants to go back 9n that, to that extent the railway may be estopped from denying that. .But the correspondence can only-· be taken into account to determine what would be the reasonable time and not to show t,hat because of the subsequent conduct of the railway the reasonable time got extended by the time taken by the railway in tracing the goods. Where however the corres~ pondence provides material from which reasonable time in particular case may be found out the correspondence would be relevant to that extent. For example, take cttse where the correspondence shows that certain bridge between the place of despatch and the place of destination has been destroyed on account of floods and that is the reason why the goods have not reached

Boolomal v. Union of lntli• -Wancl'taoJ •

1961 Bpotamal v. Union of Indio WanehooJ.

the place of destination. In such case the corres-pondence may well be taken into account to find out the reasonable time for the carriage of the goods in the circumstances. This will show that reasonable time will depend upon the facts of each case and that in the absence of any special circum-stances the reasonable time would practically be the same between two stations as would normally or usually or ordinarily be taken for the carriage of goods from the one station to the other. Further there may be no difficulty in finding out the reason-able time where bulk of the goods have been delivered and only part bas not been delivered, for in such case in the absence of special circum-stances it should be easy to see that the reasonable time is that within which the bulk of the goods liave been delivered. We may in this connection refer to Union of lndi,a v. Meghraj AgarwaUa (')and Gajanand Rajgoria v. Union of India (') where it has been held that where part of the consignment has been delivered, that should, in spite of the correspondence regarding inquiries and in the absence of circumstances lee.ding to the contrary view, be taken to be the date when the goods ought to have been delivered as whole within the mean-ing of those words in Art. 31. The view taken therefore by the High Court in Aminchand Bholanath's caae as to the interpretation of the words in the third column of Art. 31 is in our opinion correct.

Let us therefore see what was the reasonable

time within which the goods ought to have reached Jagadhari from Gujranwala in the present case. The appellant himself in his replication stated that the goods in ordinary course should have reached Jagadhari before August 15, 1947. Further in the notice that he gave on January 22, 1948, he stated that the cause of action arose on August 21 and 30, 1947, and on subsequent dates when he met with (I) A.1.R. (1938) Cal. 4U. (2) A.l.R. (1955) (1955) Pat. 182. 182.

(2) A.l.R. (1955) (1955) Pat. 182. 182.

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

refusal to deliver the goods. The fact that the appellant gave notice under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in January 1948 in our opm1on shows that even taking into account the extra-ordi-nary conditions prevailing on account of the partition of India in August 1947; the appellant was satisfy that the goods ought to have be~m delivered before January 22, 1948 when he gave the notice. If that was not so and if the ca.use of action had not arisen, there was no reason why the appellant should have given the notice under s. 80 in January 1948. We can see no difficulty therefore on the facts of this case in agreeing with the High Court that the goods ought to have been delivered even taking iQ.to account the extraordinary circumstances prevailing on account of partition within five or six months of the date on whio~ they were sent, namely, August 5, 1947. This is also borne out by the fa.ct that the appellant gave noti~ o~ January 22, 1948 i.e. about 5-1 /2 months after the goods had been consigned. In the ciroumstance8 1~he suit which was brought in December 1949 would .. be clearly barred by time, for we cannot take' the reasonable time within which the goods ought to ,have been delivered in the circumstances of this case,..~yond January 22, 1948, when th'~ notice under s. 80was given. As to the correspondence between the p~rties it is enough to say that there is notping in the correspondence which has any bearing on the reasonable time taken for the carriage of goods from Gujranwala to Jagadhari. It is true that on December 1, 1948, the appellant was informed by the Railway that the goods were still lying in Gujranwala because of the restrictions imposed by the Pakistan Government and he was asked to get the necessary permits from that Government; but that in our opinion has nothing to do with the question of reasonable time to be taken for the carriage of goods from Gujran-wala to J agadhari. In the circumstances, the High Court was right in holding that the suit was barred b1 limitatioD UDder A.rt. 31.

1962 Booltlfll•I l.'ni011 '" of /rtdia Wo,.cltoo J.

Bo(ltamdl v. Unio.11 of 11ulia W111choo J.

Learnlld counsel for the appellant however drew our attention to the Displaoed Persons ( Insti-tution of Suits) Act(No. XLVII of l!J48) as amended by the Displaced Persons (Institution of suits arnl legal proceedings) amendment Act, (No. LXVIII of 1950) and contended t)lat the appellant being displaced person would be entitled to file this suit under s. 8 of this Act as amended upto March 31, 1952. It appears that in para. 9 of the plaint, the appellant relied on his being displaced person in order to give jurisdiction to the court in Delhi where he filed the suit. But he does not seem to have relied on his being displaced person on the question of limitation. Tho respondent in the written-statement denied that the appellant was displaced person and nothing further happened with respect to this aspect of the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that in fact the appellant is displaced person and would be entitl-ed to the benefit of the Act of 1948 as amended by the Act of 1950 and on that basis his suit would be within time and that the suit might be remanded to allow tp.e appellant to bring his case under the Act of 1948 as amended. Ordinarily we would not have allowed such prayer when the point was not raised in the plaint ; but considering that the appellant claims to be displaced person who is registered in Delhi and also considering that he had to file this suit in forrha pauperis probably on account of the circumstances arising from the partition of India, we think that the appellant should be given chance to prove his case under the Act of 1!148 as amended by the Act of 1950. We express no opinion on the question whether the appellant. is displaced person or whether he is entitled to the benefit of the Act of 1948 as amended by the Act of 1950. But we think in the interest of justice he should be given chance to bring his case under the Act of 1948 as amended by the Act of 1950 in the matter of l~mitation subject to his

1 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS

paying all the costs incurred by the respondent up-to date irrespective of the result of the suit.

We therefore allow the appeal and remand the case to the trial· court for considering only the question of limitation on the basis of the Displj:i.ced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act, (No. XLVII of 1948) as amended by the Displaced Persons (Insti-tution of suits an~ legal proceedings) Amendment Act (No. LXVIII of 1950) after giving· parties chance to lead evidence in this connection, if neces-sary. If the court comes to the conclusion that the suit is within time on the basis of these two Acts, decree for the a.mount claimed minus the costs incurred upto -this date by the respondent will be passed in favour of the appellant. If on the other hand the court comes to tho conclusion that·the suit is not within limitation even under these two acts the suit will be finally dismissed. Costs incurred hereinafter will be in the discretion of the court.

ppe,al allowed •

. ::1 \VALIER L J. IYYAPP,AN & ANOTHER

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPANY

(J. L. KAPUR,' K. C. K. C. C. DAS GUPTA and

KAPUR,' K. C. K. C. C. DAS RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.,

Oorn.1KJny-Direetor trustee and in .fiduciary poaition-'frust if could be created on anothera hand-Ucen,se-of irrevo;. rAhle where there has been change of purpose -In'lian Easements. Act 1882 (5 of 1882), sa. 60 (b), 62(/ ).

The respondent, Company with charitable 6bjects owned certain lands and the appellant who was the Chairman of the Board of Directors, was asked to construct building on the said .land. It was subsequently found that the cost would be more . than the estimated amount, which probably the Company was not prepared to spend., At that stage the

BootomaJ v.

Union oj india