VINAITHEETHAL ACHI Vs. CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rupees 23,120/- being the principal and interest due on a deposit letter and for costs. The plaintiff was married to the 10th defendant and at the time of the marriage in pursuance of an agreement a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was paid by the 10th defendant as stridhanam to her. This amount was handed over by her to her father M. R. M. Raman Chettiar for investment of the same in P1. RM. ST. Firm, dabein, Burma, of which her father was also a partner. It was the plaintiff's case that the partners of the firm agreed to receive the amount in deposit and undertook to repay the amount with interest on demand at P. Alagapuri. The partners of the firm were M. R. M. Raman Chettiar, N. S. Chockalingam Chettiar and S. ST. R. M. Raman Chettiar. M. RM. Raman Chettiar the father of the plaintiff died in 1932. After his death a renewal letter Ex. A-3 dated 13-4-1936 was issued by one Natarajan Chettiar, agent of PL. RM. ST. Firm for the principal and interest of Rs. 17,592, Annas 13, pies 6. In this Kaiyezhuthu letter it had been stated that this amount had been credited to the plaintiff's account; the interest was payable at the Rangoon Naduppu rate of interest. Defendants 1 to 5 are the legal representatives of M. RM. Raman Chettiar and 8th defendant is his brother. Defendants 6 and 7 are the heirs of Chockalingam Chettiar who died in 1945. 9th defendant is the son of the deceased S. ST. RM. Raman Chettiar. The PL. RM. ST. Firm was sending vaddi chittai to the plaintiff till 1948.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 6 and 7 filed O. S. 50/56 on the file of the Sub-Court, Pudukottai, against the other defendants for dissolution of the partnership and for taking up accounts and there was a preliminary decree. The plaintiff made a demand of the suit amounts from the defendants by a notice dated 1-12-1958 and thereafter had filed the suit. The defendants had denied their liability and had raised a number of pleas. The learned Subordinate Judge of Pudukottai held that a sum of Rs. 7,000/belonging to the plaintiff as stridhanam was invested in the firm PL. RM. ST. , that this investment was a deposit and not a loan, that Ex. A-3 dated 13-4-1936, which is a renewal letter, was true but it had not been proved to be valid and binding, that the vaddi chittais were sent from the firm to the plaintiff and that the endorsement of part-payments made in Ex. A-3 were genuine. He also held that the suit was not barred by limitation. But on the ground that Natarajan Chettiar who had executed Ex. A-3 had not been proved to be the agent of PL. RM. ST. firm at the time when Ex. A-3 was executed, he dismissed the suit.

(3.) IT is not disputed that Natarajan Chettiar was an agent of the PL. RM. ST. firm. It is also not disputed that Ex. A-3 had been signed by the said Natarajan Chettiar. The learned Subordinate Judge held that Natarajan Chettiar could not have had the power to act as agent on the date of Ex. A-3 solely on the ground that Raman chettiar, the father of the plaintiff who was acting as the agent of the firm prior to him left Dabein in Pankuni 1936 and Natarajan Chettiar became agent thereafter. He has taken the evidence that Raman Chettiar continued as agent till Pankuni 1936 as though it was till the last date of Pankuni. It might be that he left Dabein in the early part of Pankuni and after he reached India he sent the power to natarajan Chettiar in which case on 13-4-1936 when Ex. A-3 was executed natarajan Chettiar would be the agent. Having regard to the subsequent endorsement Exs. A-5 and A-6 and the Vaddi Chittai and other evidence it is reasonable to infer that Natarajan Chettiar was agent of the firm when Ex. A-3 was executed. Further it would have been the easiest thing for the defendants to prove that Natarajan Chettiar was not the agent on 13-4-1936 with reference to their accounts instead of putting the plaintiff to strict proof. The defendants have not chosen to produce the account books or let in any independent evidence to negative the above reasonable inference that Natarajan Chettiar was the power agent on the date when Ex. A-3 was executed. Since it is not disputed that natarajan Chettiar was an agent of the firm and in the absence of evidence to show that on the date when Ex. A-3 was executed he was not an agent, we are of the view that Ex. A-3 cannot be held to be not valid or binding on the defendants. As already seen, all the other findings were in favour of the plaintiff.