Judgment :- V. RAMASWAMI, J. 1. The appellant-plaintiff is the daughter of one A.K. A. CT. V. Venkatichalam Chettiar of Kottaiyur. She had a brother by name Natesan alias Chidambaram Chettiar, whose sons are the defendants in the suit and the respondents herein. Venkatachalam Chettiar and Chidambaram Chettiar belonged to a very rich Nattukottai Chettiar family and they were doing banking business in Burma, Malaya, and other places with Kottaiyur as headquarters. Venkatachalam Chettiar was the manager of the family and he was looking after the family affairs as well as the firms affairs till his death sometimes in 1928 or 1929. After his death Chidambaram Chettiar, his son, was managing the affairs of the family and the business. Somasundaram Chettiar, the husband of the plaintiff was the sisters son of Venkatachalam Chettiar. It is stated that Somasundaram Chettiar was not very rich. When plaintiffs father expressed his desire to marry the plaintiff with Somasundaram Chettiar, the plaintiffs mother did not agree for the proposed alliance. The plaintiffs father promised that he would set apart Rs. 5000 as austhi fund as per the custom among the Nattukottai Chettiar community and that he would keep the said amount invested in his business, improve and augment the same as a trustee and pay back the amount with the accretions whenever demanded. The plaintiff was given in marriage to the said Somasundaram Chettiar and the marriage was performed on or about 19th December 1913. At that time the plaintiff was very young. The amount set apart to the credit of the plaintiff was invested in the business of Venkatachalam Cbettiar. Some time in 1924 A. K. A. CT. V Venkatachalam Chettiar firm at Wakhma, which was a joint family firm of Venkatachalam Chettiar and his undivided brothers, was partitioned and a sum of Rs. 91,000 was got by Venkatachalam Chettiar as his share. By that time the plaintiff had become major and at the instance of the plaintiff and her mother the aggregate augmented austhi amount which was calculated in the sum of Rs. 18,500 was credited in the name of the plaintiff in the A. K. A. CT. V. Venkatachalam Chettiar firm, Wakema on 10th February 1924 and thereafter the amount was sent to A. K. A. CT V. Venkatachala Chettiar firm at Rangoon. Later this amount was transferred through the Chartered Bank to A. K. A. CT. V. firm at Kualalampur. 18,500 was credited in the name of the plaintiff in the A. K. A. CT. V. Venkatachalam Chettiar firm, Wakema on 10th February 1924 and thereafter the amount was sent to A. K. A. CT V. Venkatachala Chettiar firm at Rangoon. Later this amount was transferred through the Chartered Bank to A. K. A. CT. V. firm at Kualalampur. On 21st February 1927 the amount with interest was calculated at $15,050 equivalent to Rs. 22,575 and this was credited in the name of the plaintiff in the Kualalampur firm. The plaintiffs father was acting as a trustee of the plaintiff in respect of the money and was improving the fund. After the death of Venkatachlam Chettiar, the defendants father as family manager who inherited the business was managing the fund acting as a trustee. Chidambaram Chettiar the defendants father had admitted that the austhi amount was due to the plaintiff in the Estate Duty office at Kualalampur and the Income tax Department. After the death of Chidambaram Chettiar some 12 or 13 years before the suit the defendant got the properties and the business and they also acted as trustees of the moniess of the plaintiff. On 20th November 1961 the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendants demanding the account and the payment of the amount due to her. Though an interim reply was received from the agent of the defendants that the amount due to the plaintiff would be ascertained from his principal and a reply sent, no further reply was received from the defendants. This in short is the case of the plaintiff. On these allegations she filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for rendition of accounts. 2. Defendants denied this claim of the plaintiff. They stated that the defendants did not enter into any agreement to keep the money as trustees on behalf of the plaintiff, that they had no personal knowledge with regard to the same and that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants at any time to improve the monies as trustee for the plaintiff. There is no kailethu letter or vaddi chittai issued to the plaintiff during the time of Venkatachalam Chettiar in order to show that any deposit amount or austhi fund belonging to the plaintiff was set apart or kept in the business of Venkatachalam Chettiar. The defendants explained the credit entry of Rs. There is no kailethu letter or vaddi chittai issued to the plaintiff during the time of Venkatachalam Chettiar in order to show that any deposit amount or austhi fund belonging to the plaintiff was set apart or kept in the business of Venkatachalam Chettiar. The defendants explained the credit entry of Rs. 18,500 in the name of the plaintiff in A. K. A. CT. V. firm of Waken a and the transfer of the same to Rangoon as amounts kept nominally in the name of plaintiff by Venkatachalam Chettiar and that mere entries in the accounts would not give any right to the plaintiff to claim the same as her money. They also stated that later on when the amount was transferred to Kualalumpur at the instance of Venkatachalam Chettiar himself the monies were entered into as (capital amount) or additional capital. Defendants denied any knowledge of any admission by Venkatachalam Chettiar before the Incometax Department or the Estate Duty Officer acknowledging plaintiffs right to any money. There was no setting apart of any amount and no accountable relationship exited between the plaintiff and the defendants and also between the plaintiff and either Venkatachalam Chettiar or Chidambaram Chettiar. On these pleadings a number of issues were framed. 3. The trial Court, after a consideration of she oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that except the credit entries in the Rangoon and Kualalumpur firms there is no evidence to show that any cash was deposited in the firm to the credit of the plaintiff and that the money was kept by Venkatachalam Chettiar as a trustee for the plaintiff. The entry in the account book itself is not sufficient proof that the amount has been set apart. The trial Court also held that there is no evidence to show that the defendants father Chidambaram Chettiar agreed to continue as trustee after the death of Venkatachalam Chettiar and that the defendants cannot also be said to be trustees of the plaintiff after the death of Chidambaram Chettiar. Therefore, there is no accountable relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. The trial court also considered that the premise of the plaintiffs father and the gifting of austhi fund in pursuance of the promise had not been established and there was a long delay in claiming this amount from the defendants. On these findings the trial Court dismissed the suit. 4. The trial court also considered that the premise of the plaintiffs father and the gifting of austhi fund in pursuance of the promise had not been established and there was a long delay in claiming this amount from the defendants. On these findings the trial Court dismissed the suit. 4. The Oral evidence in this case is that of the plaintiff and the Kariyesthan (Tamil) of the defendants family. Before considering oral evidence, we may as well straightaway go into the documentary evidence available in this case. At page 247 of Number two ledger of Wakema firm, we find under the heading (Tamil) a credit entry in the name of Karaikudi Peri Lakshmi a sum of Rs. 18,500/- with a description that interest in payable at 12 months rest. xxxx [The discussion of the evidence relating to entries in A/c notes omitted Ed.] 5. Thereafter, we find a debit entry as on 14th January, 1932 debiting the entire amount of 22,523.56 in the plaintiffs ledger page and crediting the defendants account with the same amount as (Tamil) (additional capital) received. The plainliffs account is closed on that date. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant strongly relied on these entries and contended that Venkatachalam Chettiar arrived at the figure of Rs. 18,500/- as due to the plaintiff towards her austhi account and set apart this amount from out of the profits received by him in the Wakema firm and entered the same to the credit of the plaintiff in his (Tamil) and later on improved the same as found in the later accounts. The amount was also treated as the deposit money of the plaintiff and vaddi chittais were prepared as seen from the entries in the ledger pages and the interest was periodically credited to the plaintiffs account. Even after the death of Venkatachalam Chettiar the amount was treated as deposit amount of the plaintiff and interest was being credited till 14th January, 1932 when it was converted into an additional capital of Chidambaram Chettiar, the defendants father. The plaintiff was not aware of treating the amount as additional capital of Chidambaram and the unilateral act of Chidambaram Chettiar would not bind the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not aware of treating the amount as additional capital of Chidambaram and the unilateral act of Chidambaram Chettiar would not bind the plaintiff. The learned counsel further submitted that the credit in the name of the plaintiff under the caption (Tamil) by Venkatachalam Chettiar showed that Venkatachlam Chettiar was holding it as trustee of the plaintiff and it was not the amount belonging to Venkatachalam Chettiar himself. In support of his contention that (Tamil) in the name of somebody implied the holding of the amount as a trustee for that person, he relied on a number of decisions. 7. In Muthuraman Chetti v. Perianna Chettiar 67 M.L.J. 317 it was held that according to the custom prevailing among Nattukkottai Chettiars when money is deposited by the brides father or some one else on the maral of the brides father, such money though deposited in the name of the husband is really in the nature of a trust fund which will enure to the advantage of the bride and her children. The maralder has some control over the money in question and acts as effective check on the indiscriminate withdrawal of the money by the person in whose name it was deposited. This Court further observed that what the exact positition of the maraldar is, would depend on the circumstances of each case. In Palaniappa Chettiar v. Nachiappa Chettiar (1941) 2 M.L.J. 558 this Court held that though it may be that the maralder alone could demand payment from the firm in which the amount is deposited the fund and its accretions were not personal to the maraldar. In other words, the maraldar is only a trustee of the fund and holds the same for the benefit of the cestui qui trusts. 8. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that these are all mere entries in the account books and there is no indication that the amount in question was either gifted or any cash was deposited in the firm. It was merely adjustment entries from one firm to other. Such entries in the accounts in the name of a person would not afford any evidence of title to the same and they could not themselves be the basis for claiming the amount. It was merely adjustment entries from one firm to other. Such entries in the accounts in the name of a person would not afford any evidence of title to the same and they could not themselves be the basis for claiming the amount. In support of this contention the learned counsel relied on the decision in Chambers v. Chambers A.I.R. 1944 P.C. 78; 57 L.W. 425 (P.C.) which was an appeal from Ida L. Chambers v. K.R. Chambers (1940) 2 M.L.J. 963 ; 52 L.W. 729. In that case the facts were these. One C.A. Chambers was the sole proprietor of a business known as Chrome Leather Company. The balance sheet of the firm as on 31st March 1920 showed that the capital stood at Rs. 16,75,892.11.10 but nearly the whole of this amount represented the value of the building, land plant and, machinery and stock-in-trade and cash was only Rs. 538.15.2. In the year 1917 and 1919 he caused certain entries to be made in the books of the company crediting his first wife Ethel Mary Chambers with Rs. Two lakhs, her son with Rs 40,000/- and two daughters Rs. 40,000/- each. Separate accounts in the names of his wife, son and daughters were entered. He also wrote to the firm to the effect that their respective credit are to bear interest at six per cent payable half yearly and when the firm is converted into a hooted liability company preference shares at 6 per cent interest payable half yearly are to be issued for the sums at credit. He had also requested the firm to inform his wife, son and daughters about the amounts standing to their credit in the firms books. In these letters it was stated that the amount was entirely in the nature of a personal gift from Mr. Chambers to them and will bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum payable half yearly. The condition relating to the conversion of the amount into preference shares was also mentioned. By her will, the wife bequeathed to her trustee, the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs standing to her credit after transfer of Rs. One lakh upon a trust for the benefit of her son, her two daughters and their issues. In pursuance of this will, Mr. By her will, the wife bequeathed to her trustee, the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs standing to her credit after transfer of Rs. One lakh upon a trust for the benefit of her son, her two daughters and their issues. In pursuance of this will, Mr. Chambers caused to be opened in the books of the firm separate accounts showing the beneficiaries under the will of his wife as creditors and the firm as the debtor in respect of the amounts which they were entitled to according to the will. Sometime later, Mr. Chambers retransferred the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to his own capital account in assertion of his contention that he was under no legal obligation in respect of the allocation of capital to his relations and in order to avoid the auditors qualifying their certificates. Mr. K.R. Chambers as trustee under the will of Mrs. Chambers took an originating summons to establish Mrs. Chambers right in respect of the sum of Rs. 2 lakh. The first question that arose for consideration was whether there was valid and completed gift of Rs. 2 lakhs by Mr. Chambers to his wife. The second question was, if the answer to the first question was to be in the negative whether there was a valid declaration of trust in respect of this money. The learned single Judge who heard the matter first held that there was no valid gift but the trust had been credited. On appeal, a Division Bench of this Court held that there was neither a completed gift nor Mr. Chambers had created any valid trust in respect of the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. For taking the view, the learned Judge relied on the fact that Mr. Chambers was not in a position to make gift in cash of the said amount because he had only large assets represented by lands, buildings, and stock-in-trade when he purported to make a gift. So far as the land and buildings were concerned, gifts could only be completed by a properly worded and duly registered document. So far as the stock-in-trade is concerned he could Vcnt it by a registered deed or by actual delivery to the donee but there was no registered deed and there was no delivery. Mr. So far as the land and buildings were concerned, gifts could only be completed by a properly worded and duly registered document. So far as the stock-in-trade is concerned he could Vcnt it by a registered deed or by actual delivery to the donee but there was no registered deed and there was no delivery. Mr. Chambers action in re-transferring the amount to his capital account was relied on by the learned Judge as showing that the donor himself considered that there was no completed gift of the money. On the question of the effect of the book entries, this Court following the Privy Council judgment in Hariram Serowgee v. Madan Gopal Bagla 57 M.L.J. 581 held that the book entries shall not convert to determine the rights of parties. When the matter was taken up in appeal to the Privy council the only question that was argued before the Privy Council was whether the trust in favour of Mrs Chambers had been effectively constituted. The Privy Council took the view that the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was not set aside and appropriated by Mr. Chambers as a fund transferable to Mrs. Chambers of which he was to be a trustee. At the most, it was an attempt to give Mrs. Chambers the interest in the capital of his business to be ensured on the basis of his having contributed Rs. 2 lakhs The entire business including the share in it which he purported to credit Mrs. Chambers remain entirely under the unfettered control of Mr. Chambers. 9. It may be seen from the facts in that case that the question whether there was completed gift or creation of a trust was considered withre-ference to the facts that Mr. Chambers was not in a position to make gifts in cash at the time when these entries were made and the entire assets represented land, buildings and stock-in-trade. It is because of this fact reference was made to Ss. 5 and 6 of the Trust Act which related to creation of trust in relation to immovable property and the Privy Council held that there was no non-testamentary instrument in writing either by the author of the trust or the trustee declaring the trust and also Mr. Chambers never indicated with reasonable certainty by any words or acts the intention on his part thereby to create a trust. Chambers never indicated with reasonable certainty by any words or acts the intention on his part thereby to create a trust. His acts were considered inconsistent with such an intention. The decision on this aspect is therefore not helpful. 10. In the present case, in addition to the entries in the books, the plaintiff in her deposition as P.W. 1, had spoken the promise made by her father at the time of marriage and crediting it to her account in 1924. She also produced Ex. A.1 an account note book showing the accounts she had with the firm at Wakema, Rangoon and Kualalumpur for the period 10th February 1924 to 21st February 1929. xxx (The discussion of evidence omitted—Ed.) Ex. A-2 vaddi chittai is for a particular period and the entries in the defendants ledger page of Wakema firm and Rangoon firm are for larger periods and therefore necessarily the amounts mentioned therein could not tally with the accounts. Apart from these we find in the accounts books produced by the defendants themselves there is reference to the vaddi chittai prepared in respect of the plaintiffs account. There is also reference to the instructions received with reference to these amounts payable to the plaintiff and vaddi chitai. These entries and the oral evidence along with the other entries in the account books show the there was a completed gift in favour of the plaintiff. In this connection, we have to take into account the peculiar custom prevailing among the Naitukottai chetliars keeping the amounts gifted at the time of the marriage of their near relations in deposit with the firms either in their own names or in the names of somebody else as maraldars . We are also of the view that when the amount was separately credited as (Tamil) account in the name of the plaintiff. Venkatacalam Chettiar had divested himself of his entire right and interest over the amount keeping only the right of control as a maraldar. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that (Tamil) does not mean that it was kept as trust for somebody else but it only means it was received through or on the recommendation of somebody, and maraldar was not a trustee of the money nor has he any right to operate upon it. In support of his contention, he relied on certain decisions. In support of his contention, he relied on certain decisions. The Decision in Chellanna Chettiar v. Subramania Chetty 1918 M.W.N. 564 was concerned with the right of the maraldar to operate upon the account. The learned Judges held that whatever be the meaning of the word maraldar the evidence in that case did not disclose that when a deposit in the name of one man under the maral of another was made the firm with whom the money has been deposited would be justified in acting on the orders of the person under whose maral the deposit has been made without authority of the person in whose name the deposit stands. But Justice Seshagiri Iyer, who delivered a separate judgment, of course, referred to the evidence and practice and said that the maralman is neither a trustee in respect of the money nor has he any right to operate on it. The Privy Council considered the position of maralder in Arunachala Chetty v. Vayiravan Chetty 57 M.L.J. 628 and it was observed that no conclusion can be based upon the mere use of the term ‘maral’. At the same time the Privy Council also observed the maralder is clearly something more than a bare agent, the limit of his powers and responsibilities depending upon the understanding between the parties and that it is a question to be decided upon all the circumstances of the case whether the intention was that the maraldar and his firm while remaining directly responsible to those to whom the beneficial interest in the fund belonged should have authority to change its investment from time to time and to give a valid discharge for its repayment. The Privy Council relied on the relationship of the parties in coming to the conclusion about the right of the maraldar. 12. In the present case also we have the important fact that the plaintiff was the daughter of Venkatachalam Chettiar and sister of Chidambaram Chettiar who were maraldars and having regard to the relationship, any action of the maraldar transferring the fund and investing the same will not in any way affect the plaintiffs right to the fund as a beneficiary. It is true the word “maral” is not mentioned in the plaint. It is true the word “maral” is not mentioned in the plaint. But the facts relating to the creation of the trust and the position of Venkatachalam Chettiar and Chidambaram Chettiar as maraldars has been clearly stated in the plaint and therefore nothing turns of the fact that the word “maral”, has not been mentioned in the plaint. We are of the view that Venkatachalam Chettiar had made the credit entries in the account books with the intention to make the gift in the form of a trust and that he was a trustee. Chidambaram Chettiar, the defendants father and the defendants are therefore liable to account for the same. 13. No other points arise for consideration in this appeal. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside and there will be a preliminary decree for accounts as prayed for in the suit. The appellant will be entitled to her costs throughout.