Customary succession to a woman's absolute property, mistaken payment, and statutory revaluation defeated recovery of the deposit.

Under the proved community custom, a deceased woman's absolute property devolved on her sons in preference to her daughter, and the daughter was therefore not the heir entitled to the deposit. Payment to the daughter's authorised agent did not bind the estate because receipt by an agent cannot validate discharge against the true heirs when the principal lacks entitlement. The mistaken payment claim was made within three years of discovery and was not time-barred. However, the restitutionary claim still failed because the Malayan Ordinance required revaluation by the statutory date, reducing the amount below the recoverable minimum and leaving nothing payable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, under the proved custom governing the community, the monies standing in the name of the deceased woman devolved on her daughter or on her sons; (ii) whether payment of the deposit to the daughter's agent constituted a valid discharge binding on the estate; (iii) whether the plaintiff could recover the amount from the daughter on the ground of mistake and whether the claim was barred by time; and (iv) whether the claim fell within Section 6 of the Malayan Ordinance No. 42 of 1948 so as to restrict or defeat recovery.

Issue (i): whether, under the proved custom governing the community, the monies standing in the name of the deceased woman devolved on her daughter or on her sons.

Analysis: The evidence did not support any legally significant distinction between different kinds of a woman's absolute property for the purpose of devolution under the community custom. The established custom among the community was that sons succeeded to the mother's stridhanam in preference to the daughter, and the court accepted the prior judicial recognition of that custom. On the materials before it, the deposit represented the mother's absolute property and was therefore governed by the custom of preferential succession in favour of sons.

Conclusion: The monies devolved on the sons and not on the daughter.

Issue (ii): whether payment of the deposit to the daughter's agent constituted a valid discharge binding on the estate.

Analysis: The agent received the money on behalf of the daughter, not in an individual capacity. A receipt by an authorised agent acting professedly for the principal is, in law, a receipt by the principal unless the circumstances show otherwise. Since the daughter was not the heir entitled to the fund, the agent had no authority to receive and discharge the amount as against the true heirs or the estate.

Conclusion: The payment to the agent did not bind the estate and did not operate as a valid discharge against the true heirs.

Issue (iii): whether the plaintiff could recover the amount from the daughter on the ground of mistake and whether the claim was barred by time.

Analysis: The payment was made under the mistaken assumption that the daughter was the heir entitled to the money. The court found no evidence to sustain the contrary finding that the payment was not bona fide or was not made under mistake. The cause of action to recover arose when the mistake was discovered, and the suit was instituted within three years thereafter. Accordingly, the claim was not barred by limitation.

Conclusion: The payment was made under mistake and the claim was within time, but recovery still failed on the application of the Malayan Ordinance.

Issue (iv): whether the claim fell within Section 6 of the Malayan Ordinance No. 42 of 1948 so as to restrict or defeat recovery.

Analysis: The obligation to refund money paid under mistake was treated as a debt arising during the occupation period. As it was not a time-essence contract debt, revaluation had to be made with reference to the statutory date. On such revaluation, the amount fell below the minimum recoverable threshold fixed by the Ordinance, with the result that no amount was payable.

Conclusion: The claim was governed by Section 6 of the Ordinance and no sum was recoverable from the daughter.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, and the dismissal of the suit was affirmed without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where community custom governing a woman's absolute property gives sons preferential succession, payment to an agent of a person not entitled to the fund does not discharge the debtor against the true heirs, and a restitutionary claim arising during the occupation period may be defeated if the governing revaluation statute reduces the amount below the statutory minimum.

---