BHUPENDRA NARAYAN SINHA Vs. CHANDRAMONI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought to recover damages for negligence. The father of the first defendant, Maharaja Ranjit Sinha, was the executor of the estate of the plaintiff's husband and the certificated guardian of her property. During the period in which he bore this relationship towards the plaintiff he lent out of the estate of, the plaintiffs husband a sum of Rs. 2,000 upon the security of a promissory note. In substitution of that note a new promissory note was executed by the parties to the previous note for Rs. 2,500 on the 14th March 1914. No steps were taken by the Maharaja to recover the amount of this promissory note which was payable on demand, the result being that on the 14 March 1917 the cause of action upon the promissory note became barred, by limitation. On the 3 May 1918 the Maharaja died, and was succeeded by his son the first defendant. Between 1918 and 1920 when the plaintiff reached her majority the Defendant No. 1 was her certificated guardian. On the 3 May 1921, the plaintiff instituted the present suit against the Maharaja's eldest son and his two brothers, as heirs of the Maharaja. The relief sought, however, was claimed against the first defendant as representing the estate of his father. The plaintiff in the suit claimed damages caused by the negligence of the Maharaja in permitting the cause of action upon the promissory note of 1914 to become time-barred. She also claimed interest. Under the promissory note interest was fixed at six per cent.

(2.) Both the lower Courts decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, but whereas the trial Court decreed the suit against the estate of the late Maharaja for the amount of the principal <JGN>Page</JGN> 2 of 3 and proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum up to the date of his death, the lower appellate Court varied the decree by allowing additional interest at the same rate from the death of the Maharaja until the majority of the plaintiff in 1920.

(3.) On farther appeal to the High Court the learned vakil on behalf of the 1 defendant contended that the doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum persona applied to this cause of action, and inasmuch as the Maharaja's estate admittedly has not been benefited as the result of the tort, the cause of action against the Maharaja did not survive against his executors and administrators.