Intention and surrounding circumstances determine whether a document is a deposit receipt or a promissory note

A document describing payment of stridhanam and allied assets placed with a joint family business was treated as a receipt evidencing a deposit, not a promissory note, because the character of the transaction depended on the parties' intention and surrounding circumstances. Once the document had been admitted in evidence, the objection that it was insufficiently stamped could not be reopened later. The suit was also held to be within limitation, as no valid demand against the defendants in their own capacity was proved within the prescribed period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cadjan voucher evidenced a deposit or constituted a promissory note. (ii) Whether the document was inadmissible for want of stamp. (iii) Whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the cadjan voucher evidenced a deposit or constituted a promissory note.

Analysis: The nature of the transaction had to be determined from the intention of the parties and the surrounding circumstances, not from the words of the document alone. The money represented stridhanam and allied assets of the mother of the beneficiary, and was placed with the joint family business carrying on as Nattukottai Chettiars. In that setting, the relationship created was that of depositor and depositee. The expression promising payment did not convert the deposit into a loan or the receipt into a promissory note.

Conclusion: The document was a receipt evidencing a deposit and not a promissory note, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the document was inadmissible for want of stamp.

Analysis: The document had been admitted in evidence by the trial court, and once admission had been made, the objection that it was not duly stamped could not be reopened at a later stage. The statutory bar prevented the appellants from challenging the admission after the document had already been received in evidence.

Conclusion: The objection based on insufficiency of stamp was not available, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Limitation depended on when a valid demand arose against the defendants representing the junior branch. The earlier settlement with the senior branch did not constitute a demand against the defendants in their own capacity. On the facts found, no demand within the prescribed period against the defendants was proved, and the concurrent findings below were that Article 60 did not bar the suit.

Conclusion: The suit was within time and not barred by limitation, in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantial grounds and the decree in favour of the plaintiffs was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Whether a document is a promissory note or a receipt evidencing deposit must be determined from the intention of the parties and the surrounding circumstances, and once a document has been admitted in evidence, its admissibility cannot later be impeached on the ground of insufficient stamp.

---