ABDUL HAMID SAHIB Vs. RAHMAT BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent for recovery of Rs. 13,437-14-6 from the assets of her late husband Abdul Gaffur sahib in the hands of the defendants. This sum was made up of four items of which Rupees 624 was claimed as mahar due to the respondent form her husband. This debt has been admitted by the defendants. The other three items are Rs. 7000, another sum of Rs. 1700 and a third sum of Rs, 4112-14-6 said to have been paid by the respondent to her late husband on 4-9-1948, 2-9-1953 and 224-1954, receptively. Her case was that these amounts were paid to the husband as deposits on the understanding that he might use the moneys as capital in his beedi business. Abdul Gaffur Sahib died on 12-11-1958, leaving his widow, the respondent, and the defendants as his heirs, and, it is common ground that the respondent is entitled to a quarter share and the defendants together to the remaining three-fourths. The main assets of Abdul Gaffur Sahib are stated to be a house bearing No. 126 Iqbal Street, Musalimpur, Vaniyambadi, and also a goodwill and trade name in a beedi business known as S. I. R. Beedi. The respondent claimed that the amounts due to the should be paid out these assets.

(2.) THE claim was resisted by the defendants. They maintained that he sum of Rs. 7000 represented the sale proceeds of a shop which though stood in the name of the respondent, in fact, belonged to Abdul Gaffur Sahib and that the other items were merely book entries and the relative entries in the account books of Abdul gaffur Sahib were false. In any case, they urged that the suit claim was barred by limitation on the ground that the first three items were not deposits but mere loans.

(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge found all the four items to be true and due form Abdul Gaffur Sahib. He also held that the first three items were in the nature of deposits and the suit was not therefore bared by limitation. The defendants having thus failed, they have appealed against the decree, the appeal being restricted only to the first three items.