https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310562 The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the plaintiff could not recover the amount from either the first or second defendant. It concluded that the first defendant was not the sole heir to the deposited amounts, as the custom favored sons over daughters. The payment made to the first defendant's agent was under a mistaken belief, but the suit was not barred by limitation. The liability was deemed an "occupation debt" under the Malayan Ordinance No. 42 of 1948, resulting in no recoverable amount. No costs were awarded. en-us Fri, 14 Oct 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Oct 2023 17:18:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310562 The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the plaintiff could not recover the amount from either the first or second defendant. It concluded that the first defendant was not the sole heir to the deposited amounts, as the custom favored sons over daughters. The payment made to the first defendant's agent was under a mistaken belief, but the suit was not barred by limitation. The liability was deemed an "occupation debt" under the Malayan Ordinance No. 42 of 1948, resulting in no recoverable amount. No costs were awarded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Oct 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310562