Scott, C.J:— It is admitted that the defendant 1, by an order of the Court made in an administration suit, is the manager of the property of Haji Usman Haji Oomar who died in or about March 1908.
The plaintiffs' firm had dealings with Haji Usman's firm at Malegaon. The business of that firm, according to the finding of the lower Court, was, during the life tims of Haji Usman, carried on by a Gumasta named Khanderao.
The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs on the 30th of May 1906 by presenting the plaint to the officer of the Court at Ahmednagar. In order that the plaintiffs may not be met by a bar of limitation they have to show that there was some acknowledgment binding upon the estate given under section 19 of the Limitation Act within the three years anterior to the 30th of May 1906. The acknowledgment relied upon for this purpose is dated 2nd of June 1903. It is in the shape of a post-card addressed to the plaintiffs by the Gumasta Khanderao from Malegaon in the name of Haji Usman Haji Oomar in which no reference is made to the death of the latter. It purports to be an answer to a letter from the plaintiffs relating to their account and concludes by saying you mention that there are moneys due; as to that I admit whatever maybe found on proper accounts to be owing by me; you need not entertain any anxiety.”
The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has held that there was no reason to suppose that the plaintiffs at this time knew that Khanderao's authority had terminated by the death of Haji Usman, and it is not alleged that they had notice of bis death at that time, assuming the authority of the writer of the letter to give acknowledgment had terminated.
It appears from the decision of the Privy Council in Maniram Seth v. Seth Rupchand that an acknowledgment in terms such as we have referred to would be an acknowledgment within the meaning of section 19.
The question, then, is whether the Gumasta Khanderao, who was in charge of the business on the 2nd of June 1903, could bind the estate of Haji Usman who died two months previously.
The learned Judge has held that there is a strong presumption in favour of the arrangement which existed in Haji Usman's time as deposed to by the witness Khanderao having continued with, at any rate, the implied authority of Haji Usman's legal representatives, so far as to cover the acknowledgment of the 2nd of June.
According to the evidence of Khanderao and a number of letters which were proved in the case, he carried on business for his master and generally managed the affairs of the firm, and his master always allowed him to write letters on behalf of the firm and never repudiated any of them.
Under these circumstances, we think, that the case falls within the provisions of sections 208 and 209 of the Contract Act. The termination of Khanderao's authority, if it did terminate, did not take effect as regards plaintiffs before the 2nd of June as they did not know of Haji Usman's death; and Khanderao was bound under section 209 to take on behalf of the representatives of his late principal all reasonable steps for the protection and preservation of the interests entrusted to him. The post-card written on the 2nd of June was, we think, a reasonable letter for the manager to write to a creditor who was inquiring about the moneys due to him, and was written for the protection and preservation of the assets of the shop. We, therefore, hold that the suit was not barred by limitation.
We affirm the decree of the lower appellate Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.
Decree affirmed.
G.B.R