TMI Blog1960 (10) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defendant, had been paid and discharged under the receipt, date 28-8-1943, granted by one Muthupalaniappa Chettiar, the first defendant's authorised agent, and the said discharge is binding on all the defendants, and for a decree, directing the second defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 47, 436-9-10 with subsequent interest thereon at '6 per cent per annum till the date of payment, or, in the alternative, should it be held that the 2nd defendant is not liable to refund the amount, directing the first defendant to pay the said amount with costs and subsequent interest There was also a prayer for injunction, restraining defendants 2 and 3 from prosecuting Civil Suit No. 26 of 1952 on the file of the Supreme Court of the Federation of Malaya and from executing the decree in case a decree was obtained during the pendency of the action. This relief of injunction, however, became ineffectual, as the civil suit not only ended in a decree, but had also been satisfied by payment by the plaintiff of the decree amount. The plaint itself was amended because of these subsequent events. 2. The following facts are not in dispute. Moneys belonging to Valliammal Achi (mother o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st Muthupalaniappa Chettiar for the recovery of 12752 dollars 8 cents, being the amount due in respect of Valliammai's deposit with the plaintiff, with interest thereon. On 18-11-1952, the Solicitors for the plaintiff in that suit furnished particulars of the plaintiff's claim to the court. It was stated therein that the sole beneficiary entitled to the estate of Valliammai was her husband (the present 2nd defendant). The present plaintiff, who was the defendant in that mil, pleaded that, on the death of Valliammai her only daughter (the 1st defendant herein) became solely entitled to the amount claimed, according to Hindu law and custom governing the devolution of the estate of the deceased, On 7-7-1953, the Supreme Court of Malaya passed a decree against the plaintiff for a sum of 12782 dollars 8 cents together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum until payment and taxed costs. The plaintiff herein filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal at Kuala Lumpur, but the appeal was dismissed. It appears from the ground of decision furnished by the trial Judge that, on the date of hearing counsel for the defendant, plaintiff herein applied for an adjournme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sons of Valliammai were entitled to the said monies after her death. After the presentment of the plaint, the second defendant filed an additional written statement, in which he raised the contention that the decision of the Malayan court was binding on the parties and operated as res judicata and that it was not open to the plaintiff to question the same. 5. The first defendant adopted the written Statement of the 2nd defendant and further pleaded that the alternative claim made by the plaintiff against her was clearly barred by limitation, By another additional written statement, she raised another plea, viz., even assuming that the plaintiff had a cause of action against her, he could only recover such amount as he was entitled to under the provisions of Ordinance 42 of 1948 of the Federation of Malaya, and that, according to the said evaluation, the sum due to the plaintiff would be less than 100 dollars. 6. Several issues were raised; but it is sufficient to mention the following questions which fall for decision in this appeal: 1. Whether the first defendant was the sole heir of her mother with respect to the amounts deposited in the plaintiff's firm. 2. Whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntiff's attempt was to confine the meaning to property given to a woman on the occasion of her marriage, and not to monies and other property given to her on Other occasions, which are described as siruvattu. The monies of Valliammai to deposit with the plaintiff, it was alleged by him, were her siruvattu panam. No evidence was let in to support this distinction between stridhanam and siruvattu. Indeed, it is a matter for comment that no oral evidence was given either by the plaintiff or by the second defendant. The parties contented themselves with filing copies of the depositions given by the second defendant and Muthupalaniappa Chettiar in another suit, viz-, O. S. No. 70 of 1952, on the Gle of the Sub Court, Pudukoltai. That suit did not relate to the subject-matter of the present suit. It related to the amount in deposit with the plaintiff, which admittedly belonged to the first defendant herself. The only question in that suit was whether the payment by the plaintiff to the first defendant's agent (Muthupalaniappa) legally constituted a discharge of the plaintiffs liability to the first defendant. So far as the custom is concerned, there is an unreported ruling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tee of Letters of Administration to the estate of Valliammai. Such grantee would effectually and completely represent Valliammai's estate, whoever be the beneficiaries. Once we have held that the first defendant did not succeed to these monies, it follows that the suit by the second defendant through his agent was rightly decreed. It is true that the claim was made in the suit that the monies belonged to the second defendant as the husband; but such assertion would not bind the real heirs; viz., the sons. The result is that the payment by the plaintiff to the first defendant's agent (Muthupalaniappa), even if true and valid, would not be binding on the second defendant or the legal heirs of Valliammai. The plaintiff cannot recover the amount paid by him to the second defendant in accordance with the decree of the Malayan court. The plaintiff's suit, in so far as it is against the second defendant, must fail. 9. The next question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount paid by him to the second defendant or any other amount from the first defendant. The money, admittedly, was not paid into the hands of the first defendant. It was paid to her agen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence. Stray statements in the depositions in the former suit were sought to be made use of as having a bearing on the point. But, as we have already mentioned, the prior suit related to an entirely different subject matter, and there could be no question in that suit as to the competence of the agent to collect the money which admittedly belonged to his principal (the first defendant)- 10. No attempt was made before us to rehabilitate the plea raised on behalf of the first defendant that the payment to Muthupalaniappa was vitiated by duress, coercion or undue influence. There is, however, a finding by the learned Judge which was attacked, viz., that the payment made to Muthupalaniappa was neither bona fide nor under a mistake. We think that this finding of the learned Judge is not supported by any evidence, and is based on pure speculation. 'According to the learned Judge, the plaintiff, as a Nattukottai Chetti, must be presumed to be acquainted with the custom of the community, whereby the stridhanarn of a woman devolves oil her sons. We have no evidence as to this. On the other hand, he raised the plea in the Malayan court that it was the daughter (the first defenda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date or dates, as at the date when payment was first demanded by the creditor or his agent or as at the 12th day of August 1945, whichever of such dates is earlier in time, and shall be payable to the extent determined by such scale, and no interest shall be payable on a debt as so revalued. Proviso (a) is also important. It runs thus: Nothing shall be payable in respect of any Such debt or balance of any such debt, which, when revalued as aforesaid, does not amount to one hundred dollars in Malayan currency, or which was incurred after the 12th day of August 1945. If the liability of the first defendant to refund the amount paid to her is an occupation debt, then, Under Section 6 of the Ordinance, the revaluation should be as on 12-8-1945, because, the liability was not the result of a time essence contract, and there is no evidence of any demand earlier than 12-8-1955. It is also not disputed that, if revalued as on 12-8-1945, the amount would be less than 100 dollars. Mr. R. Gopalaswami Aiyangar, however, contended that the liability of the first defendant to refund would not be an occupation debt. After giving the matter our careful consideration, we have come t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
