Back
1960 Supreme(Mad) 288
MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. V. RAJAMANNAR,VEERASWAMI
Muthupalaniapa Chettiar
Versus
Alagamai Achi and others
Appeal No. 20 of 1957
Decided On : 14 October, 1960
R. Gopalaswami Iyengar and V. Srinivasan, for Appellant; A. Sundaram and P. Balasubramaniam, for Respondents.
The sons of a mother are the preferential heirs to her stridhanam under the custom of the Nattukottai Chettiar community.
Headnote:
HINDU LAW - SUCCESSION - NATTOKOTTAI CHETTIAR COMMUNITY - STRIDHANAM - CUSTOM - SONS PREFERENTIAL HEIRS TO MOTHERS STRIDHANAM - MONEY DEPOSITED BY MOTHER IN PLAINTIFFS FIRM - PAYMENT TO DAUGHTER - NOT VALID DISCHARGE - SUIT BY ADMINISTRATOR OF MOTHERS ESTATE - DECREE - RES JUDICATA - PAYMENT UNDER MISTAKE - RECOVERY FROM DAUGHTER - MALAYAN ORDINANCE 42 OF 1948 - OCCUPATION DEBT - REVALUATION - AMOUNT LESS THAN 100 DOLLARS - NOT RECOVERABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a money lender, filed a suit against the defendants, claiming a declaration that the amount of 6267 dollars 83 cents invested with the plaintiffs firm of RM. M. PL. of Malacca in the name of Vallaiammai Achi, the wife of the second defendant, had been paid and discharged under the receipt, dated 28-08-1943, granted by one Muthupalaniappa Chettiar, the first defendants authorised agent, and the said discharge is binding on all the defendants, and for a decree, directing the second defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 47, 436-9-10 with subsequent interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum till the date of payment, or, in the alternative, should it be held that the 2nd defendant is not liable to refund the amount, directing the first defendant to pay the said amount with costs and subsequent interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the monies in deposit with the plaintiffs firm in the name of Valliammai represented her stridhanam monies and the monies devolved upon the four sons of Valliammai and not on the 1st defendant (her daughter) that the payment made by the plaintiff to the first defendants agent in Malacca would not discharge the plaintiff of the liability to the estate of Valliammai, that he had no authority to grant discharge and that the payment was not vitiated by duress, coercion or undue influence, but that the payment was neither bona fide nor made under a mistake, that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Malaya operated as res judicata between the parties and that, therefore, the plaintiff would not he entitled to recover the amount either from the second defendant or from the first defendant on the ground that the payment was made under a mistake.
Issues: 1. Whether the first defendant was the sole heir of her mother with respect to the amounts deposited in the plaintiffs firm. 2. Whether, under the power of attorney in his favour, Muthupalaiappa Chettiar had authority to demand or get back the said amount. 3. Whether the alleged payment on 27-08-1943 to Muthupalanaiappa Chettiar was vitiated on any ground. 4. Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against any and which of the defendants. 5. Whether the suit claim against the first defendant is barred by time. 6. Whether the Malayan Ordinance No. 42 of 1948 governs the suit claim, and, if so, what, if any, is the correct amount due ?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the monies in deposit with the plaintiffs firm in the name of Valliammai represented her stridhanam monies and the monies devolved upon the four sons of Valliammai and not on the 1st defendant (her daughter). 2. The court held that the payment made by the plaintiff to the first defendants agent in Malacca would not discharge the plaintiff of the liability to the estate of Valliammai, that he had no authority to grant discharge and that the payment was not vitiated by duress, coercion or undue influence, but that the payment was neither bona fide nor made under a mistake. 3. The court held that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Malaya operated as res judicata between the parties and that, therefore, the plaintiff would not he entitled to recover the amount either from the second defendant or from the first defendant on the ground that the payment was made under a mistake.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, but, in the circumstance, without costs.
RAJAMANNAR, C. J. :- This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, in O. S. No. 34 of 1953, which was instituted by Muthupalaniappa Chettiar. The contesting defendants were defendants 1 and 2. The 1st defendant, Alagamai Achi, is the daughter of the second defendant by one Vallaiammai Achi The third defendant is the authorised agent of the second defendant in charge of his affairs in Malacca (Malaya). The plaintiff was carrying on a money lending business in Malacca under the name and style of RM. M. PL.
The suit was for a declaration that the amount of 6267 dollars 83 cents invested with the plaintiffs firm of RM. M. PL. of Malacca in the name of Vallaiammai Achi, the wife of the second defendant, had been paid and discharged under the receipt, dated 28-08-1943, granted by one Muthupalaniappa Chettiar, the first defendants authorised agent, and the said discharge is binding on all the defendants, and for a decree, directing the second defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 47, 436-9-10 with subsequent interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum till the date of payment, or, in the alternative, should it be held that the 2nd defendant is not liable to refund the amount, directing the first defendant to pay the said amount with costs and subsequent interest.
There was also a prayer for injunction, restraining defendants 2 and 3 from prosecuting Civil Suit No. 26 of 1952 on the file of the Supreme Court of the Federation of Malaya and from executing the decree in case a decree was obtained during the pendency of the action. This relief of injunction, however, became ineffectual, as the civil suit not only ended in a decree, but had also been satisfied by payment by the plaintiff of the decree amount. The plaint itself was amended because of these subsequent events.
2. The following facts are not in dispute. Moneys belonging to Valliammal Achi (mother of the first defendant and wife of the 2nd defendant) and moneys belonging to the first defendant herself were invested with the second defendant in his P.C. K. firm in Malacca. On 13-03-1937 a sum of 6267 dollars 83 cents belonging to Valliammai Achi was transferred from the current account of the P.C. K. firm of the 2nd defendant to the RM. K. PL, firm of the plaintiff for investment with the latter firm. The plaintiff passed a voucher, Ex. A-1, on 13-03-1937 in favour of Valliammai Achi.
It may be mentioned that a sum of 10,000 dollars belonging to the first defendant herself was transferred similarly from the current account of the 2nd defendant to the plaintiffs RM. M. PL. firm by way of investment in the name of the first defendant. We are not concerned, however, with this amount in this suit. On 03-02-1941, the first defendant executed a power of attorney in favour of one M. N.P. Muthupalaniappa Chettiar, authorising him to manage all her affairs in the Malayan peninsula.
There was also a firm of the first defendant with the vilasam "K. AL." Valliammai Achi died on 05-11-1940, in India, leaving her surviving the 2nd defendant (her husband), the first defendant (her daughter) and four sons. The Japanese, during the Second World War, overran the Malayan peninsula. During the Japanese occupation of the territory, the plaintiff paid the amounts due in respect of the monies belonging to the 1st defendant personally and the amount due in respect of the deposit in the name of Valliammai Achi, her mother, to Muthupalaniappa Chettiar, the power of attorney agent of the first defendant. The payment of Valliammai Achis deposit money was apparently on the footing that, on her death, the first defendant (her daughter) became entitled to it.
In March 1951, the third defendant, P. A. Palaniappa Chettiar, as the agent of the second defendant applied to the Supreme Court of the Federation of Malaya, Settlement of Malacca, for the grant of letters of Administration of the estate and effects of Valliammai Achi to him as attorney of the seco
