TMI Blog1952 (12) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the karta and the managing member, for the recovery of the defendants' half share in the moneys deposited by the father of Shanmugham on 15-8-1888 with the joint family. These moneys represented the Stridhanam money, 'Eadu pon Kalutturu' money and sundry jewels etc. money of Shanmugham's mother, and had aggregated to a sum of ₹ 1,310 inclusive of interest on 15-8-1888. Veerappa Chettiar, the father of Shanmugham was related to Ramanatha and. the joint family carried on business as Nattukottai Chettiars. This sum of ₹ 1,310, was deposited by Veerappa Chettiar in the name of Shanmugham with the joint family and Ramanatha executed in favour of Shanmugham on 15-8-1888 a Kaiyeluthu letter agreeing to pay the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts denied the plaintiffs' claim. They contended that no moneys were deposited by Veerappa Chettiar with the joint family as alleged, that the cadjan voucher evidencing the deposit was inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp and that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by the Law of Limitation. 4. The learned Trial Judge admitted the cadjan voucher in evidence holding the same as proved, held that the plaintiffs' suit was within time and decreed the same. The defendants took an appeal to the High Court and the High Court dismissed the appeal confirming the decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs. This appeal has been filed by the defendants against that decision of the High Court after obtaining the necessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Neither the senior branch nor the junior branch of the joint family could be heard to say that they were not bound by the transaction and the defendants were liable to Shanmugham and the plaintiffs for the amount due at the foot of the deposit along with the other members constituting the senior branch of the family. This contention of the defendants is therefore unsound. 7. It was next contended that the cadjan voucher was a Promissory Note. Both the courts below came to the conclusion that the cadjan voucher was not a promissory note but was a receipt evidencing the deposit. The cadjan voucher was in the following terms: Credit to Kandanur Veerappa Chetty, Shanmukham-Debit to VY. A. of the above place. Your mother's Stridn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing on business as Nattukottai Chettiars. Under these circumstances it is clear that the transaction was a transaction of deposit and not of loan. The relations between the parties were those between depositor and depositee and were more analogous to those between a banker and customer than those between a debtor and creditor; The investment of stridhanam money in the firm of Nattukottai Chettiars was treated as a deposit within the meaning of Article 60, Limitation Act in a decision of the Madras High Court reported in -- 'Subbiah Chetty v. Visalakshi Achi, AIR 1932 Mad 685 (A). We are of the opinion that the cadjan voucher executed by Ramanatha in favour of Shanmugham set out above was a receipt evidencing the deposit and was not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the document at this stage and the appellants are not entitled now to urge this objection before us. 11. It was lastly contended that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by the Law of Limitation. The argument of the appellants in this behalf was twofold: (1) That the document being a promissory note the suit should have been filed within three years of the execution of the cadjan voucher i.e., on or before 15-8-1891, and (2) That the plaintiffs had made a demand for the deposit more than three years before the institution of the suit on 13-11-1944. The first part of this argument cannot avail the plaintiffs in view of the finding recorded above that the cadjan voucher was a receipt evidencing the deposit and was not a promissory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd upon Annamalai survived after this settlement. The only demand made by the plaintiffs upon the defendants representing the junior branch of the family was in October 1942 and thereafter as alleged by the plaintiffs in their plaint. This allegation of the plaintiffs was however denied by the defendants and as the matters stood there was really no proof of any demand having been made by the plaintiffs upon the defendants for payment of their moiety of the deposit and the suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants without any such demand having been made. If that was so the period of limitation had not commenced to run against the defendants and the suit against them was well within time. With regard to this contention al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
