Case: V.E.A. Annamalai Chettiar &amp; Another Vs. S.V.V.S. Veerappa Chettiar &amp; Others

2. The plaintiff 1, the sisters son and the plaintiff 2, theof one Shanmugham filed the suit out of which this appeal arises against the defendants, the members of the junior branch of a family which in 1888 and until 1908 was a joint and undivided Hindu family and of which one Ramanatha was the karta and the managing member, for the recovery of the defendants half share in the moneys deposited by the father of Shanmugham onwith the joint family.These moneys represented the Stridhanam money, Eadu pon Kalutturu money and sundry jewels etc. money of Shanmughams mother, and had aggregated to a sum of Rs. 1, 310 inclusive of interest onVeerappa Chettiar, the father of Shanmugham was related to Ramanatha and the joint family carried on business as Nattukottai Chettiars.This sum of Rs. 1, 310 was deposited by Veerappa Chettiar in the name of Shanmugham with the joint family and Ramanatha executed in favour of shanmugham ona Kaiyeluthu letter agreeing to pay the said sum together with interest thereon at 19 / 32 per cent. per mensem calculated with 12 monthly rests. Shanmugham died in 1893 and Veerappa Chattiar died in 1905.The plaintiffs 1 and 2 as the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Shanmugham called upon Annamalai Chettiar, the karta of the senior branch of the joint family to render to them an account of the principal sum of the said deposit and the accretions thereto by way of interest.But Annamalai told them that at the time of the partition effected between the two branches of the joint family the said amount was divided into two equal shares and he expressed his willingness to make good a moiety thereof only and agreed to sell his land in Burma in discharge of that liability. Onhe entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs in regard to the sum of Rs. 17,which was ascertained to be the liability of his branch and the demand of the plaintiffs on him was thus satisfied. The plaintiffs thereafter demanded from the defendants payment of the other moiety together with interest and on their failure to satisfy his demand sent a vakils notice datedformally demanding payment of the amount.The defendants denied their liability and the plaintiffs therefore filed the present suit against them claiming Rs. 31,being moiety of the total sum of Rs. 62,The defendants denied the plaintiffs claim. They contended that no. moneys were deposited by Veerappa Chettiar with the joint family as alleged, that the cadjan voucher evidencing the deposit was inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp and that the plaintiffs suit was barred by the Law of Limitation.4. The learned Trial Judge admitted the cadjan voucher in evidence holding the same as proved, held that the plaintiffs suit was within time and decreed the same. The defendants took an appeal to the High Court and the High Court dismissed the appeal confirming the decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs. This appeal has been filed by the defendants against that decision of the High Court after obatining the necessary certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court under Art. 133 of the Constitution.

Reasoning:
The Trial Court accepted the testimony of P.W.1 and also brought to aid the presumption under S. 90, Evidence Act, held that the cadjan voucher was duly proved and admitted it as Ex. P. 8.The High Court concurred in the finding and there were thus concurrent findings of both the courts below in regard to the genuineness and validity of theargument could not avail the appellants, Ramanatha was the karta and the managing member of the joint family and as such had the authority to execute the document evidencing the deposit and if he did so, his act was binding on all the members of the joint family. Neither the senior branch nor the junior branch of the joint family could be heard to say that they were not bound by the transaction and the defendants were liable to Shanmugham and the plaintiffs for the amount due at the foot of the deposit along with the other members constituting the senior branch of the family. This contention of the defendants is thereforethe courts below came to the conclusion that the cadjan voucher was not a promisory note but was a receipt evidencing thea transaction is a transaction of loan or deposit does not depend merely on the terms of the document but has got to be judged from the intention of the parties and all the circumstances of the case. The defendants joint family was carrying on business as Nattukottai Chettiars. The moneys represented the Stridhanam money, Eadu pon Kalutturu money and sundry jewels, etc. money of the mother of Shanmugham.The amount had aggregated to Rs. 1, 310 inclusive of interest. It was this sum which was deposited by Veerappa Chettiar whose sister was married to Ramanatha in the name of his minor son Shanmugham with the joint family, carrying on business as Nattukottai Chettiars. Under these circumstances it is clear that the transaction was a transaction of deposit and were more analogous to those between a banker and customer than those between a debtor and creditor.The investment of stridhanam money in the firm of Nattukottai Chettiars was treated as a deposit within the meaning of Art. 60, Limitation Act in a decision of the Madras High Court reported in"Subbiah Chetty v. Visalakshi Achi", AIR 1932 Mad 685   (A). We are of the opinion that the cadjan voucher executed by Ramanatha in favour of shanmugham set out above was a receipt evidencing the deposit and was not a document recording a transaction of loan between the parties.There is also a further difficulty in the way of the appellants and it is that the document having been admitted in evidence such admission could not be called in question at any stage of the proceedings on the ground that it had not been duly stamped. The provisions of S. 36, Stamp Act prelude the appellants from raising any objection against the admission of the document at this stage and the appellants are not entitled now to urge this objection beforefirst part of this argument cannot avail the plaintiffs in view of the finding recorded above that the cadjan voucher was a receipt evidencing the deposit and was not a promissory note, the second part of the argument was based on the construction which the plaintiffs put on the receipt datedEx. P. 3 and the evidence ofthat was so the period of limitation had not commenced to run against the defendants and the suit against them was well within time. With regard to this contention also there were concurrent findings of fact reached by the Trial Court as well as the High Court, viz. that no. demand was made within the period prescribed under Art. 60. If that was so, the suit was certainly not barred by the Law of Limitation. This contention of the appellants also therefore fails.