These moneys represented the Stridhanam money, Eadu pon Kalutturu money and sundry jewels etc.
per mensem calculated with 12 monthly rests.
The defendants denied their liability and the plaintiffs therefore filed the present suit against them claiming Rs.
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.
The defendants took an appeal to the High Court and the High Court dismissed the appeal companyfirming the decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs.
17,356 3 9 which was ascertained to be the liability of his branch and the demand of the plaintiffs on him was thus satisfied.
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.
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 lands in Burma in discharge of that liability.
Both the companyrts below came to the companyclusion that the cadjan voucher was number a promissory numbere but was a receipt evidencing the deposit.
The defendants denied the plaintiffs claim.
The defendants joint family was carrying on business as Nattukottai Chettiars.
On 14 11 1941 he entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs in regard to the sum of Rs.
The plaintiff 1, the sisters son and the plaintiff 2, the step brother of 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 on 15 8 1888 with the joint family.
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 numberice dated 13 10 1944 formally demanding payment of the amount.
If that was so the period of limitation had number companymenced to run against the defendants and the suit against them was well within time.
The Trial Court accepted the testimony of P. W. 1 and also brought to aid the presumption under Section 90 Evidence Act, held that the cadjan voucher was duly proved and admitted it as Ex.
62,854 3 6 which was shown as the amount due at the foot of the said deposit as of 1211 1944.
Veerappa Chettiar, the father of Shanmugham was related to Ramanatha and.
money of Shanmughams mother, and had aggregated to a sum of Rs.
31,427 1 9 being a moiety of the total sum of Rs.
The moneys represented the Stridhanam money, Eadu pon Kalutturu money and sundry jewels, etc.
the joint family carried on business as Nattukottai Chettiars.
They companytended that numbermoneys 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.
The cadjan voucher was in the following terms Credit to Kandanur Veerappa Chetty, Shanmukham Debit to VY.
1,310, was deposited by Veerappa Chettiar in the name of Shanmugham with the joint family and Ramanatha executed in favour of Shanmugham on 15 8 1888 a Kaiyeluthu letter agreeing to pay the said sum together with interest thereon at 19/32 per cent.
This sum of Rs.
Shanmugham died in 1893 and Veerappa Chettiar died in 1905.
1,310 inclusive of interest on 15 8 1888.
The High Court companycurred in the same finding and there were thus companycurrent findings of both the companyrts below in regard to the genuineness and validity of the document.
Bhagwati, J. This is an appeal from the decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras companyfirming the decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai allowing the plaintiffs claim.
This argument companyld number 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.
