Skip to content


Midde Sampathirayudu Vs. Sonti Venkataratnam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1940Mad878; (1940)2MLJ278
AppellantMidde Sampathirayudu
RespondentSonti Venkataratnam
Cases ReferredNarayanan v. Periappari
Excerpt:
- .....the relationship with him. therefore there can be no question that the beneficial ownership in the suit bonds and promissory notes is in the plaintiff and the defendant in his deposition admitted that these bonds and promissory notes belonged to the plaintiff but he set up a claim that he became the owner thereof by virtue of a transfer from the plaintiff in consideration of a sum of rs. 3000 paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. as remarked by the learned subordinate judge, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant paid the sum of rs. 3,000. therefore if this story of transfer is not to be believed, the plaintiff's title to the suit war bonds and government promissory notes remains. in our opinion section 5 of the government securities act has no bearing on the case, because.....
Judgment:

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff claimed two reliefs in the suit (1) an account of a certain arrack business alleged to have been carried on by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant and (2) a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of certain war bonds and Government promissory notes described in the schedule to the plaint. The case for the plaintiff is that the defendant was his son-in-law and therefore he allowed the arrack business to be carried on in his name and as security for the said business he had the Government promissory notes and war bonds deposited therefor. The learned Subordinate Judge is of opinion that the plaintiff has not made out his case that the defendant was only a benamidar in respect of the arrack business. In regard to the war bonds and Government promissory notes the learned Judge is of opinion that by virtue of Section 5 of the Government Securities Act, the defendant being the holder of the promissory notes and bonds by virtue of the transfer in his favour, he must be deemed to be the owner. The plaintiff preferred this appeal and he claimed both the reliefs again in his memorandum of appeal. He valued the relief as to account at the sum of Rs. 1,000 on the ground that he was entitled to put his own valuation on the strength of the ruling in In re Venkatanandam (1932) 64 M.L.J. 122 : I.L.R. 56 Mad. 705, of Ramesam and Mockett, JJ., which has since been overruled by a Full Bench case which is reported in In re Dhanukodi : AIR1938Mad435 . Under the latest ruling Narayanan v. Periappari : AIR1938Mad887 , the plaintiff is bound to stamp his memorandum of appeal according to the full amount of the valuation in the plaint. If this ruling is given effect to, the plaintiff ought to have paid the duty oh Rs. 10,000 not on Rs. 1,000. When confronted by this ruling Mr. Satyanarayana Rao under instructions from his client is not prepared to pay the deficit court-fee and abandoning the claim in respect thereof. Therefore the appeal so far as the relief for account is concerned must be dismissed with costs.

2. He has only pressed the claim with regard to the relief relating to war bonds and Government Promissory notes. The war bonds are evidenced by Exs. C, D, E, F and L series and the Government promissory notes by Exs. M series. The documentary evidence in support thereof completely bears out the plaintiff's case. In respect of every one of these war bonds and promissory notes the plaintiff has paid money and become the owner thereof but he deposited them in 1929 as security for the arrack business which was being carried on by the defendant having regard to the relationship with him. Therefore there can be no question that the beneficial ownership in the suit bonds and promissory notes is in the plaintiff and the defendant in his deposition admitted that these bonds and promissory notes belonged to the plaintiff but he set up a claim that he became the owner thereof by virtue of a transfer from the plaintiff in consideration of a sum of Rs. 3000 paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. As remarked by the learned Subordinate Judge, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant paid the sum of Rs. 3,000. Therefore if this story of transfer is not to be believed, the plaintiff's title to the suit war bonds and Government promissory notes remains. In our opinion Section 5 of the Government Securities Act has no bearing on the case, because that section was enacted only for the protection of the Government who can get a due discharge from the person who is the holder of the note. The question as to the beneficial ownership is not affected by Section 5. The plaintiff's appeal with regard to the suit war bonds and promissory notes has therefore to be allowed. We therefore set aside the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge in regard thereto and give the declaration asked for. The respondent will pay the costs of the appellant so far as this claim is concerned.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //