Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)V.E.A. Annamalai Chettiar And Anr. vs S.V.V.S. Veerappa Chettiar And Ors. on 9 December, 1952
Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this
Court in V. E. A. Annamalai Chettiar & Anr. v. S. V. V. S.
Veerappa Chettiar(1) in support of the proposition that the
answer to the question as to whether it was a loan or
deposit would not depend merely on the terms of the document
but had to be judged from the intention of the parties and
the circumstances of the case. That is manifestly the
correct approach.
Nawab Major Sir Mohammad Akbar Khan vs Attar Singh on 6 April, 1936
The Judicial Committee in Nawab Major Sir Mohammad Akbar
Khan v. Attar Singh & Ors. (1) spoke of the distinction bet-
ween the deposit and loan to be that the two terms were not
mutually exclusive but that a deposit not for a fixed term
did not seem to impose an immediate obligation on the
depositee to seek out the depositor and repay him.
Though,documents by themselves are not conclusive of the
question they have the evidentiary value and if they
corroborate the oral evidence the importance of the
documents is magnified. The letter Ex. A-5 bears the date
29 September, 1942 and is contemporaneous with the entire
transaction between the appellant and the respondent. The
letter was as follows:-
Article 60 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Subbiah Chetty And Ors. vs Visalakshi Achi on 5 May, 1932
Counsel for the appellant contended that there was a demand
for a part of the amount in the year 1943 because Padampat
Singhania said that there was demand in the month of
October, 1943 and therefore limitation would start from that
date. The view of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High Courts
is that there must be an unqualified demand for the whole
sum before the limitation can star in case of demand for
return of the amount deposited. (See Jogendranath
Chokerbutty v. Dinkar(1) Ram Motigaur v. Naranji ( 2 ) and
Subbaih Chetty & Ors. v. Visalakshgi Achi) ( 3 ) . That is
the correct position in law. Counsel for the appellant did
not contend to the contrary in view of the consensus of
opinion of the different High Courts. It is also important
to bear in mind that a demand in the year 1943 for a part of
the amount would not be effective because there were common
partners in the firms of the respondent and the appellant.
For these reasons we are of opinion that the High Court was
correct in decreeing the suit. The appeal therefore fails
and is dismissed with costs.
1