Judgement

BHAGWATI, J. : This is an appeal from the decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras confirming the decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai allowing the plaintiffs claim.

2. The plaintiff 1, the sister s son and the plaintiff 2, the step-brother of one Shanmugham filed the suit out of which this appeal arises against the defendants, the members of the junior branch of a family which in 1888 and until 1908 was a joint and undivided Hindu family and of which one Ramanatha was the karta and the managing member, for the recovery of the defendants half share in the moneys deposited by the father of Shanmugham on 15-8-1888 with the joint family.

These moneys represented the Stridhanam money, Eadu pon Kalutturu money and sundry jewels etc. money of Shanmugham s mother, and had aggregated to a sum of Rs. 1,310 inclusive of interest on 15-8-1888. Veerappa Chettiar, the father of Shanmugham was related to Ramanatha and the joint family carried on business as Nattukottai Chettiars.

This sum of Rs. 1,310 was deposited by Veerappa Chettiar in the name of Shanmugham with the joint family and Ramanatha executed in favour of shanmugham on 15-8-1888 a Kaiyeluthu letter agreeing to pay the said sum together with interest thereon at 19 / 32 per cent. per mensem calculated with 12 monthly rests. Shanmugham died in 1893 and Veerappa Chattiar died in 1905.

The plaintiffs 1 and 2 as the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Shanmugham called upon Annamalai Chettiar, the karta of the senior branch of the joint family to render to them an account of the principal sum of the said deposit and the accretions thereto by way of interest.But Annamalai told them that at the time of the partition effected between the two branches of the joint family the said amount was divided into two equal shares and he expressed his willingness to make good a moiety thereof only and agreed to sell his land in Burma in discharge of that liability. On 14-11-1941 he entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs in regard to the sum of Rs. 17,356-3-9 which was ascertained to be the liability of his branch and the demand of the plaintiffs on him was thus satisfied. The plaintiffs thereafter demanded from the defendants payment of the other moiety together with interest and on their failure to satisfy his demand sent a vakil s notice dated 13-10-1944 formally demanding payment of the amount.

The defendants denied their liability and the plaintiffs therefore filed the present suit against them claiming Rs. 31,427-1-9 being moiety of the total sum of Rs. 62,854-3-6 which was shown as the amount due at the foot of the said deposit as of 12-11-1944.

3. The defendants denied the plaintiffs claim. They contended that no moneys were deposited by Veerappa Chettiar with the joint family as alleged, that the cadjan voucher evidencing the deposit was inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp and that the plaintiffs suit was barred by the Law of Limitation.

4. The learned Trial Judge admitted the cadjan voucher in evidence holding the same as proved, held that the plaintiffs suit was within time and decreed the same. The defendants took an appeal to the High Court and the High Court dismissed the appeal confirming the decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs. This appeal has been filed by the defendants against that decision of the High Court after obatining the necessary certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court under Art. 133 of the Constitution.

5. Three contentions were urged before us by Shri R. Kesavan Ayyangar appearing for the appelants :

(1) That there was no evidence of the deposit.

(2) That the cadjan voucher was a promissory note and therefore inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp, and

(3) That the plaintiff s suit was barred by the Law of Limitation.

6. It was first contended that the cadjan voucher was not proved before the Trial Court and that P. W. 1 who deposed to the handwriting of Ramanatha was n