AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Muthusami Aiyar, J.—It is urged in support of the appeal that this money claimed from Beeru Gounden by the respondent was not a debt
due to Venkataramana within the meaning of Act VII of 1889. This contention appears to me to be well founded. The word ''debt'' is described in
Sun-section 2 to Section 4 as including any debt except rent, revenue, or profit payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes. Though to
constitute a debt it is not necessary that there should be a loan, still it is necessary that there should be a sum of money due by Beeru Gounden to
the deceased. In the case before me the deceased left some sheep with Beeru Gounden. Beeru Gounden failed to return the same. There is nothing
in the evidence to show that the original transaction was anything more than entrustment of the sheep for safe custody and that Beeru Gounden was
under any obligation to pay a liquidated sum as the value of the sheep. Any promise made to respondent to pay Us. 45 for its value would not
make him a debtor to Venkataramana. The respondent was at liberty to sue Beeru Gounden for damages either for wrongful detention of the
sheep or treating him as her debtor sue him for the money promised to be paid to her as the value of the sheep. Beeru Gounden never became a
debtor to Venkataramana within the meaning of the Act. No certificate can therefore be granted to Respondent under the Act. (See Narayan Bhau
Bartake v. Tatia Ganpatrao Deshmukh I. L. R. (1891) B. 580 I set aside the order of the Judge and dismiss the application for a certificate with
costs.