Last Updated on
1. 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 nude, his suit must fail. He has held, on the evidence, that plaintiff has failed to prove his case and dismissed the suit.
2. It is contended here that there is evidence sufficient to prove the case, and, reliance is placed on a remark in Narayanan Chettiar v. Vellayappa Chettiar  1 M.W.N. 206. This refers to Ramanathan Chettiar v. Subramaniam Chetty  28 M.L.J. 372, and says:
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.
3. The above presumption does not find a place in Ramanathan Chetty v. Subramaniam Chetty  28 M.L.J. 372, 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.