S A CHELAPPA CHETTY Vs. EPRVRSSUBRAMANIA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions arise in this appeal. The first question is whether the defendants Nos. to 5, with whom the suit deposit was made, were justified in acting on the order of the 6th defendant to transfer the deposit which was in the name of the plaintiff to the name of the plaintiff s wife, because the deposit had been made with them in the plaintiff s name maral the 6th defendant. Maral literally means that the deposit had been made on the recommendation or introduction of the 6th defendant Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 have treated it as if it meant that the money was deposited to the order of the 6th defendant, so that the 6th Defendant was authorised to operate on the deposit although it was in the name of the plaintiff. In Appeal No. 17 of 1913 there was some discussion on the meaning of the word maral and it was suggested that it might mean that the money could not be withdrawn by the person in whose name it had been deposited without the consent of the person under whose maral the deposit had been made. Some of the evidence in this case, including the evidence of one of the defendants own witnesses, goes to show that that is the meaning. "Whether that be so or not, the evidence for the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 altogether fails to show that a deposit in the name of one man under the maral of another justifies the firm with whom the money has been deposited in acting on the orders of the person under whose moral the deposit has been made without the authority of the person in whose name the de-posit stands. We, therefore, agree with the Subordinate Judge that defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were not justified in transferring this deposit from the name of the plaintiff to the name of the plaintiff s wife and in subsequently transferring it to another firm on the order of the 6th defendant, under whose maral it continued to be when deposited in the name cf the plaintiff s wife.

(2.) The only other serious question in the case is one of limitation. There is no direct evidence as to the terms upon which this money was deposited, so far as the date of the repayment goes. But in Exhibit I, which is a letter from one member of the defendants firm to another forwarding a Hundi, Exhibit B, it is said that the money was to be credited in the name of the plaintiff under the maral of the 6th defendant for 6 Thavanais with interest at a rate exceeding the two months Thavanai interest of E.R. by 1/32 of a rupee, and Mr. K. Srinivasa Aiyangar has argued that this shows that the agreement was that the money should, be deposited for a term of 6 Thavanais and should be repayable at the end of 6 Thavanais, and consequently it was not money deposited under an agreement that it shall be payable on demand, within the meaning of Article 60 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) Now in the first place, I do not think that that is the effect of the evidence. The surrounding circumstances show that the money was deposited in the name of a minor and in connection with the marriage of a minor, and it cannot have been the intention of the parties that it should be repayable at the end of 6 Thavanais. The agreement appears to have been that at any rate for 6 Thavanais interest should be payable at a rate exceeding nadappu interest by 1/32 of a rupee. This is also borne out by the way in which the deposit was dealt with after it had been transferred to the name of the plaintiff s wife, because in Exhibit IX we find that interest is allowed at 1/32 of a rupee in excess of the nadappu rate for 3 Thavanais and afterwards at the nadappu rate, so that. the agreement seems to have been simply that at any rate for 6 Thavanais interest should be paid in excess of the nadappu rate.