MUTHUPALANIAPA CHETTIAR Vs. ALAGAMAI ACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, in O. S. No. 34 of 1953, which was instituted by Muthupalaniappa Chettiar. The contesting defendants were defendants 1 and 2. The 1st defendant, Alagamai Achi, is the daughter of the second defendant by one Vallaiammai Achi. The third defendant is the authorised agent of the second defendant in charge ot his affairs in Malacca (Malaya). The plaintiff was carrying on a money lending business in Malacca under the name and style of RM. M. PL, The suit was for a declaration that the amount of 6267 dollars 83 cents invested with the plaintiff's firm of RM, M. PL. of Malacca in the name of Vallaiammai Achi, the wife of the second defendant, had been paid and discharged under the receipt, dateQ 28-8-1943, granted by one Muthupalaniappa Chettiar, the first defendant's authorised agent, and the said discharge is binding on all the defendants, and for a decree, directing the second defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 47, 436-9-10 with subsequent interest thereon at '6 per cent per annum till the date of payment, or, in the alternative, should it be held that the 2nd defendant is not liable to refund the amount, directing the first defendant to pay the said amount with costs and subsequent interest There was also a prayer for injunction, restraining defendants 2 and 3 from prosecuting Civil Suit No. 26 of 1952 on the file of the Supreme Court of the Federation of Malaya and from executing the decree in case a decree was obtained during the pendency of the action. This relief of injunction, however, became ineffectual, as the civil suit not only ended in a decree, but had also been satisfied by payment by the plaintiff of the decree amount. The plaint itself was amended because of these subsequent events.

(2.) The following facts are not in dispute. Moneys belonging to Valliammal Achi (mother of the first defendant and wife of the 2nd defendant) and moneys belonging to the first defendant herself were invested with the second defendant in his P. C. K. firm in Malacca. On 13-3-1937 a Sum of 6267 dollars 83 cents belonging to Valliammai Achi was transferred from the current account of the P. C. K. firm of the 2nd defendant to the RM. K." PL. firm of the plaintiff for investment with the latter firm. The plaintiff passed a voucher, Ex. A-I, on 13-3-1937 in favour of Valliammai Achi. It may be mentioned that a sum of 10,000 dollars belonging to the first defendant herself was transferred similarly from the current account of the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff's RM. M. PL. firm by way of investment in the name of the first defendant. We are not concerned, however, with this amount in this suit. On 3-2-1941, the first defendant executed a power of attorney in favour of one M. N. P- Muthupalaniappa Chettiar, authorising him to manage all her affairs in the Malayan peninsula. There was also a firm of the first defendant with the vilasam "K. AL." Valliammai Achi died on 5-11-1940, in India, leaving her surviving the 2nd defendant (her husband), the first defendant (her daughter) and four sons. The Japanese, during the Second World War, overran the Malayan peninsula. During the Japanese occupation of the territory, the plaintiff paid the amounts due in respect of the monies belonging to the 1st defendant personally and the amount due in respect of the deposit in the name of Valliammai Achi, her mother, to Muthupalanaiappa Chettiar, the power of attorney agent of the first defendant. The payment of Valliammai Achi's deposit money was apparently on the fooling that, on her death, the first defendant (her daughter) became entitled to it. In March 1951, the third defendant, P. A. Palaniappa Chettiar, as the agent of the second defendant applied to the Supreme Court of the Federation of Malaya, Settlement of Malacca, for the grant of letters of Administration of the estate and effects of Valliammai Achi to him as attorney of the second defendant. In or about February 1952, Letters of Administration were granted, as prayed for, to the third defendant as agent of the second defendant. On 2010-1952, Palaniappa Chettiar, on behalf of the second defendant as administrator of the estate of Valliammai, filed a suit in the Supreme Court of Malaya against Muthupalaniappa Chettiar for the recovery of 12752 dollars 8 cents, being the amount due in respect of Valliammai's deposit with the plaintiff, with interest thereon. On 18-11-1952, the Solicitors for the plaintiff in that suit furnished particulars of the plaintiff's claim to the court. It was stated therein that the sole beneficiary entitled to the estate of Valliammai was her husband (the present 2nd defendant). The present plaintiff, who was the defendant in that mil, pleaded that, on the death of Valliammai her only daughter (the 1st defendant herein) became solely entitled to the amount claimed, according to Hindu law and custom governing the devolution of the estate of the deceased, On 7-71953, the Supreme Court of Malaya passed a decree against the plaintiff for a sum of 12782 dollars 8 cents together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum until payment and taxed costs. The plaintiff herein filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal at Kuala Lumpur, but the appeal was dismissed. It appears from the ground of decision furnished by the trial Judge that, on the date of hearing counsel for the defendant, plaintiff herein applied for an adjournment but the adjournment was refused. The suit was decreed practically ex parte. During the pendency of that suit, the plaintiff instituted the present suit and appears to have obtained an interim injunction, restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants from proceeding with the suit in Malaya and from executing the decree if and when obtained therein. But it was of no avail. The amount deposited by the plaintiff into court towards the decree was withdrawn in or about November 1953.

(3.) The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that, under the Hindu law of Mitakshara school which governs the rights of succession among the Hindus in South India, which in this regard is in accord with the custom uniformly and invariably prevailing in the community of the parlies, viz., Nat-tukottai Nagarathars, the separate (siruvattu) amount of a woman devolves on her daughters in preference to her sons and husband, and even in Malaya, the law is the same, that therefore Alaga-mmai (the 1st defendant) was the sole heir of Valliammai. and entitled to the monies belonging to Valliammai, and that the payment to the first defendant's agent opetated in complete discharge of the plaintiff's obligation in respect of the moneys Of Valliammai deposited with his firm. The plaintiff prayed for the recovery of the amount collected from him in pursuance of the decree in the Malayan court from the second defendant. In the alternative, he prayed that the amount might be recovered from the first defendant, if it should be held that the second defendant had preferential light to the amount and the first defendant was not entitled to it.