Murugiah Pillai vs Pakkiria Pillai

William Watkins Phillips, J

The only question which arises in this case is whether the money sued for was a deposit with the defendant''s father or whether it was a loan.

The money was remitted to defendant''s father by one Govinda Pillai in 1914 and this suit is brought in 1925 the plaintiff haying taken an

assignment of the debt from a lady who purchased it in Court sale. The Subordinate Judge has found that prima facie the suit is barred by limitation

and, unless plaintiff can show that this remittance was in the nature of a deposit and that the suit had been brought within three years of demand

having been made, the suit must fail. He has held on the evidence that plaintiff has failed to prove his case and dismissed the suit.

It is contended here that there is evidence sufficient to prove the case and reliance is placed on a remark in Narayanan Chettyar v. Vellayappa

Chettydr 34 Ind. Cas. 347 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 206 : 19 M.L.T. 237. This refers to Ramanathan Chetty v. Subramaniam Chetty 28 Ind. Cas. 688

: 28 M.L.J. 372 : 17 M.L.T. 266 a prior case, reported in 28 M.L.J. 372 and eays as pointed out in that case, if there is any doubt as to. whether

a transaction amounts to a loan or a deposit the presumption is that it is a deposit and not a loan. The above presumption does not find a place in

Ramanathan Chetty v. Subramaniam Chetty 28 Ind. Cas. 688 : 28 M.L.J. 372 : 17 M.L.T. 266 and I think we must read that remark as relating

solely to the circumstances of that case, for I can find no authority for the presumption as a general presumption of law. If there is no such general

presumption I think the Subordinate Judge was justified in holding that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the case.

The revision petition is dismissed with costs.