Veeraswami, J.- 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 Rs. 624 was claimed as mahar due to the respondent from her husband. This debt has been admitted by the defendants. The other three items are Rs. 7,000, another sum of Rs. 1,700 and a third sum of Rs. 4,113-14-6 said to have been paid by the respondent to her late husband on 4th September, 1948, ‘2nd September, 1953 and 22nd April, 1954, respectively. Her case was that these amounts were paid to her husband as deposits on the understanding that he might use the moneys as capital in his beedi business. Abdul Gaffur Sahib died on 12th November, 1958, leaving his widow, the respondent, and the defendants as his theirs, and, it is common ground 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. 136, Iqbal Street, Muslimpur, 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 her should be paid out of these assets.

The claim was resisted by the defendants. They maintained that the sum of Rs. 7,000 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.

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

In our view the finding of the Court below as to the factum of the first three items of debt is correct. Each of the three items is supported by the entries in the account books maintained by Abdul Gaffur Sahib. These entries have been proved either by the writer or a person who knows the hand-writing of the writer. The respondent herself in her evidence spoke to having paid the three items into the hands of her husband. We can find no justification for the contention that the account books were not maintained in the course of business, or, the entries therein were false. There is also satisfactory evidence as to the resource of the respondent. The defendants, as we consider, have not succeeded in establishing that the sum of Rs. 7,000 really belonged to the respondent’s husband. On 1st September, 1948 by a sale deed of that date the respondent and her husband jointly conveyed a shop for a consideration of Rs. 7,500. The entry in the account books showing the advance of Rs. 7,000 to Abdul Gaffur Sahib is dated 4th September, 1948. "The respondent’s evidence is that she sold certain jewels of hers and out of the proceeds she purchased the shop from her husband. Her evidence in this regard is supported by the recital in Exhibit A-25, the sale deed dated 1st September, 1948. Beyond the assertion of the defendants, there is nothing to show that the sum of Rs. 7,000 did not belong to the respondent.

The second item also is borne out by the entry in the account books dated 2nd September, 1953. According to the respondent she carried on a business at Perambur which she transferred to her younger brother for a sum of Rs. 3,900 out of which she paid to her husband the sum of Rs. 1,700. That sale is evidenced by Exhibit A-13 dated 30th March, 1953. There is no mention in this document to support the case of the defendants that this business

Click Here to Read the rest of this document