Skip to content


Murugiah Pillai Vs. Pakkiria Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1928Mad499; 107Ind.Cas.290
AppellantMurugiah Pillai
RespondentPakkiria Pillai
Cases ReferredRamanathan Chetty v. Subramaniam Chetty
Excerpt:
.....borrower whose mortgage has invoked section 69 of the transfer of property act, is to file a civil suit and in such suit the court has power to grant injunction and to impose condition for the grant thereof--section 17; [a.p. shah c.j., f.m. ibrahim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] proceedings under section 17 power of the tribunal to pass any interim order held, once the possession of the secured asset is taken, there would be no occasion for the tribunal to order redelivery of possession till final determination of the issue. in other words, it is only when the tribunal comes to the conclusion that any of the measures, referred to in section 13 (4) taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of the act and the rules made thereunder, then only the..........it was a loan. the money was remitted to defendant's father by one govinda pillai in 1914 and this suit is brought in 1925 the plaintiff haying taken an assignment of the debt from a lady who purchased it in court sale. the subordinate judge has found that prima facie the suit is barred by limitation and, unless plaintiff can show that this remittance was in the nature of a deposit and that the suit had been brought within three years of demand having been made, the suit must fail. he has held on the evidence that plaintiff has failed to prove his case and dismissed the suit.2. it is contended here that there is evidence sufficient to prove the case and reliance is placed on a remark in narayanan chettyar v. vellayappa chettydr 34 ind. cas. 347 : (1916) 1 m.w.n. 206 : 19 m.l.t. 237. this.....
Judgment:

William Watkins Phillips, J

1. The only question which arises in this case is whether the money sued for was a deposit with the defendant's father or whether it was a loan. The money was remitted to defendant's father by one Govinda Pillai in 1914 and this suit is brought in 1925 the plaintiff haying taken an assignment of the debt from a lady who purchased it in Court sale. The Subordinate Judge has found that prima facie the suit is barred by limitation and, unless plaintiff can show that this remittance was in the nature of a deposit and that the suit had been brought within three years of demand having been made, the suit must fail. He has held on the evidence that plaintiff has failed to prove his case and dismissed the suit.

2. It is contended here that there is evidence sufficient to prove the case and reliance is placed on a remark in Narayanan Chettyar v. Vellayappa Chettydr 34 Ind. Cas. 347 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 206 : 19 M.L.T. 237. This refers to Ramanathan Chetty v. Subramaniam Chetty 28 Ind. Cas. 688 : 28 M.L.J. 372 : 17 M.L.T. 266 a prior case, reported in 28 M.L.J. 372 and eays as pointed out in that case, 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 above presumption does not find a place in Ramanathan Chetty v. Subramaniam Chetty 28 Ind. Cas. 688 : 28 M.L.J. 372 : 17 M.L.T. 266 and I think we must read that remark as relating solely to the circumstances of that case, for I can find no authority for the presumption as a general presumption of law. If there is no such general presumption I think the Subordinate Judge was justified in holding that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the case.

3. The revision petition is dismissed with costs.


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