Skip to content


S.R.M.S. Narayanan Chettyar Vs. R.M.P.R. Vellayappa Chettyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in34Ind.Cas.347
AppellantS.R.M.S. Narayanan Chettyar
RespondentR.M.P.R. Vellayappa Chettyar
Cases ReferredRamanathan Chetty v. Subramaniam
Excerpt:
gift - money left with third person as donee's money--money payable on majority or demand of donee--completion of gift--privity of contract--deposit--loan--presumption--limitation act (ix of 1908) schedule i, article 60. - .....and not a loan. the present case comes within the principle laid down by the bombay high court in the two cases to which my learned colleague has just referred. the money was not entered in the current account; there was no payment of interest, but the interest was added on from year to year, and fresh entries were made year after year. under those circumstances the money was in deposit, as pointed out by the learned judges of the bombay high court. consequently there is no bar of limitation7. i agree that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Abdur Rahim, J.

1. The two questions argued before us in this appeal are, that there was no privity of contract between Panchaksharam and the defendant and, therefore, the suit by the plaintiff, who is the assignee of the money sought to be recovered which was given to Panchaksharam by her grandfather, was not maintainable; and that the suit was barred by limitation.

(sic) before the date of the assignment and that demand cannot, therefore, in any way affect the present claim of the plaintiff.

4. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

5. I agree. As I read the evidence, it seems to me that the transaction was one of a completed gift from the grandfather to the granddaughter. Instead of allowing the granddaughter to make a deposit herself, the grandfather deposited the money with the defendant. Under these circumstances, having regard to the fact that subsequently the defendant regarded the money as being due to the granddaughter, Panchaksharam, I feel no doubt that no question of privity of contract arises in this case. The case of Iswaram Pillai v. Taregan 23 Ind. Cas. 951 can be put on the ground that the defendant in that case was regarded as the agent of the mortgagor. It was open to the mortgagor as principal to revoke the agent's authority to pay his creditors before payment or notice of the undertaking to pay by the agent was given to them. That case does not affect the present question.

6. On the question of limitation, I entirely agree with my learned colleague that Article 60 is applicable to the present case. There is no doubt there is only a thin difference between a loan and a deposit. But where the arrangement is that the money is to be paid on the happening of a certain specified event or on demand, the transaction should be regarded as a deposit payable on the happening of the event or on demand, as the case may be, and not as a loan. Further, as pointed out in Ramanathan Chetty v. Subramaniam, Chetty 28 Ind. Cas. 688, if there is any doubt as to whether a transaction amounts to a loan or a deposit, the presumption is that it is a deposit and not a loan. The present case comes within the principle laid down by the Bombay High Court in the two cases to which my learned colleague has just referred. The money was not entered in the current account; there was no payment of interest, but the interest was added on from year to year, and fresh entries were made year after year. Under those circumstances the money was in deposit, as pointed out by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court. Consequently there is no bar of limitation

7. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.


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