Skip to content


T.V. Rajaram Row and ors. Vs. A.B. Venkatachela Chettiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad636(2); 29Ind.Cas.997
AppellantT.V. Rajaram Row and ors.
RespondentA.B. Venkatachela Chettiar
Cases ReferredT.V. Rajaram Rao v. Kundaram Aiyar
Excerpt:
trusts act (ii of 1882), sections 20, 23 - agreement by lessee to deposit one year's rent with lessor--lessor, whether trustee--deposit of money by lessor, in bank at lessee's request--failure of bank--lessor, whether liable for loss. - .....in this case under exhibit b the appellant, the lessee, was to deposit an amount equivalent to one year's rent with the lessor till the expiry of the lease or its cancellation. it was to be applied at the expiry of the lease towards the rent of the last year, if nothing was due for previous years. at the request of the lessee evidenced by exhibits a. and c, the lessor deposited the money with arbuthnot and company and paid the interest to the lessee. at first the deposit was in their joint names but afterwards in the name of the lessor alone. assuming the lessor to have been, in the position of a trustee, this was not a breach of trust as there was ho stipulation that the money should be deposited in their joint names. while the fund was in this state of investment, arbuthnot and company.....
Judgment:

1. In this case under Exhibit B the appellant, the lessee, was to deposit an amount equivalent to one year's rent with the lessor till the expiry of the lease or its cancellation. It was to be applied at the expiry of the lease towards the rent of the last year, if nothing was due for previous years. At the request of the lessee evidenced by Exhibits A. and C, the lessor deposited the money with Arbuthnot and Company and paid the interest to the lessee. At first the deposit was in their joint names but afterwards in the name of the lessor alone. Assuming the lessor to have been, in the position of a trustee, this was not a breach of trust as there was HO stipulation that the money should be deposited in their joint names. While the fund was in this state of investment, Arbuthnot and Company failed and the greater part of the deposit was lost. The lessor's assignee now sues to recover the rent for the last fasli. It has already been held iu T.V. Rajaram Rao v. Kundaram Aiyar 8 Ind. Cas. 299 : (1910) 1 M.W.N. 566 : 8 M.L.T. 350 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 65 of 1910 on similar facts there was no answer to claims and we agree with these decisions. The money was lessee's money and was deposited by the lessor with Arbuthnot and Company at his request. Even if the lessor, as argued, was under the obligations of a trustee in regard to it, and the investment was in contravention of the provisions of Section 20 of the Trusts Act, the case is fully covered by Section 20 and the lessor is not liable. The last year's rent has not been paid and the above facts disclose no answer to a claim for it either by the lessor or his assignee.

2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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