Ramaswami, J.-This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in O.S. No. 29 of 1947.

The facts of this case have been fully set out in the judgment of the lower Court and need not be recapitulated because this appeal is confined only to E-Schedule moneys in regard to which the controversy is whether they were advanced by the plaintiff as deposits or loans which should be repaid only at the time of partition under an agreement pleaded or custom sought to be made out or under the general principles of Hindu Law as set out in two passages from Mayne and Ragha-vachari’s “Hindu Law” and the further question is whether recovery of these amounts is barred by limitation under Article 107 of the Indian Limitation Act.

The E-Schedule consists of three sub-schedules (a), (b) and (c) and the learned Subordinate Judge has given the following findings regarding them.

In regard to Schedule E (a) items 1 to 7, the learned Subordinate Judge states that it is quite probable that, as the plaintiff in his evidence states, he remitted moneys belonging to him. Items 1 to 6 of Schedule E(a) are moneys remitted by the plaintiff when he was employed as agent in the PL. RN. A. RM. Firm and item 7 represents salary earned by the plaintiff in the PL. AV. SP. Firm. In regard to these amounts advanced by the plaintiff from 1919 to 1930 represented by the items in Schedule E(a), the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the same because the plaintiff had no intention upto 1930 to keep his earnings separately and that these items got merged in the family assets by reason of their being credited to the family in the accounts of the partnership and that they were not advanced either as loans or as deposits.

Items 1 and 2 of Schedule E(b) are two amounts which the plaintiff paid by honouring hundials which Valliappan drew for his own expenses. These hundials are Exhibits A-3 and A-4. Item 3 of Schedule E(b) represents the hundials honoured toy the plaintiff for balance of stridhanam amounts due for Valliappa’s wife which had to be paid to her parents after her death without having any issue. Item 4 in Schedule E(b) represents money paid by the plaintiff for the funeral expenses of Valliappa’s wife. For this purpose money had been borrowed by Valliappa from S.P.A. Palaniappa of Neikuppai. Exhibit A-7 is a letter written by this person to the plaintiff at Aimbon enclosing the vaddi chittai. The learned Subordinate Judge held that there is no reason to disbelieve the plaintiff’s evidence on the point that he paid this amount also. But while holding that these amounts: represented payments by the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge further found that items 1 to 4 of E(b) Schedule could not be held to be expenses incurred by the plaintiff for joint family purposes.

Items 5 and 7 of the plaint E(b) Schedule represent repayments made by the plaintiff for the loan borrowed by the 2nd defendant for Valliappa’s marriage. Both these repayments are admitted in the written statement of the 2nd defendant Item 6 of E(b) Schedule represents repayment of a promissory note debt incurred for the expenses of the plaintiff’s father’s funeral. At the time of the father’s death the plaintiff was in foreign parts but the 1st defendant remained in the village. Exhibits A-18 and A-19 as well as Exhibit A-20 show that the 1st defendant received money from the plaintiff for the expenses of the father’s medical treatment and funeral. In regard to the moneys paid by the plaintiff after Valliappa’s marriage, the learned Subordinate Judge held that there could not be any intention on the part of the plaintiff to make a gift of these moneys to the joint family as after Valliappa’s marriage there was a partition of some of the movables of the joint faimly and each brother was expected to meet his own expenses from out of his own earnings. The learned Subordinate Judge therefore held that items

Click Here to Read the rest of this document