NAITHI Vs. CHERIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant contended as follows: THE assignment in favour of the plaintiff by the father was a benami transaction intended only to screen the kuri right from a creditor of the father. THE debt due to that creditor was subsequently paid by the defendant. THEreupon the father caused the plaintiff to assign the kuri right in favour of the defendant. No consideration was agreed to be paid to the plaintiff for the assignment, and no amount was deposited with the defendant by the plaintiff. THE defendant realised under the kuri security bond only an amount much less than Rs. 400/ -. Nothing has been paid to the plaintiff by way of interest. THE suit is, in any case, barred by limitation. THE suit was instituted at the instance of the defendant's brother, Thommen, who was on inimical terms with him.

(2.) THE trial court found that Ext. B assignment executed by the plaintiff's father in favour of the plaintiff was not a benami document, that it was executed for Streedhanam amount due to the plaintiff, that Ext. C assignment in favour of the defendant was for consideration, that the amount recited as ready cash in the assignment deed, Ext. C, was deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant and that the defendant agreed to pay interest on the amount at six per cent per annum and to repay the principal on demand by the plaintiff. Since the demand was made only on 2. 1. 1951 it was held that the suit was not barred by limitation. Accordingly, the suit was decreed with costs.

(3.) ART. 59 reads: "for money lent under an agreement Three years When the loan is made". that it shall be payable on demand. ART. 60 reads as follows: "for money deposited under an Three years When the demand is made". agreement that it shall be payable on demand, including money of a customer in the hands of his banker so payable. The decision of the case depends on the question whether the amount claimed in the suit was lent by the plaintiff to the defendant under an agreement that it should be paid on demand or whether it was deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant under an agreement that it should be paid on demand.