Judgment :- This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 17.06.1993 passed by the learned V Additions Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in dismissing the suit in O.S.No.10758 of 1988, which was filed by the plaintiffs as against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.29,000/-. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the case of the plaintiffs as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus: One K.M K. Muthiah Chettiar, the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff Invested in the first defendant company large amounts by way of shares, in addition to having deposited a sum of Rs.36,400/- as Fixed Deposits in the same concern. Subsequently, he died, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs; whereupon the plaintiffs got renewed the fixed deposits after withdrawing a sum of Rs.7,400/-- from the aforesaid sum of Rs.36,400/-. Those fixed deposits were for two years initially and renewed subsequently. Accordingly those fixed deposits were renewed up to 111. 1980; interest was received up to 111. 1980 by the plaintiffs; subsequently, there was an oral agreement between the parties concerned, whereupon those fixed deposits were renewed up to August 1988. Subsequently, the plaintiffs came to know that the second defendant is the financier and the first defendant happens to be the power agent of the second defendant. The defendants were in the habit of paying higher interest also to the customers over and above 12% as agreed earlier; to that effect, a letter was addressed by the plaintiffs on 24.03.1988; however, it evoked a reply to the effect that the defendants were not bound to pay interest after 111. 1980. In fact, earlier the defendants orally agreed to renew the fixed deposits periodically for every two years. The fact also remains that the second plaintiff requested the defendants to keep the accrued interest also in the fixed deposits along with the principal amount. The plaintiffs could not produce the fixed deposit receipts as they were missing. Hence after executing the indemnity bond they received the principal amount only, which the defendants paid without interest. The plaintiffs received the principal reserving their right to claim interest. The plaintiffs could not produce the fixed deposit receipts as they were missing. Hence after executing the indemnity bond they received the principal amount only, which the defendants paid without interest. The plaintiffs received the principal reserving their right to claim interest. The defendants having utilised the amount deposited by the plaintiffs for such a long time are bound to pay interest to the tune of Rs.43,419.03 ps relating to the period between 111. 1980 and May 1988. Hence the suit. 3. Per contra, denying and refuting, challenging and impugning the allegations / averments in the plaint, the first defendant filed the written statement with the averments thus: The first defendant, being a corporate body, is not a necessary party to the suit as it is only an agent of the second defendant. The second defendant alone was in the habit of receiving money towards fixed deposits and repaying it on maturity. The first defendant did not agree to keep the said sum of Rs.29,000/-towards fixed deposit at the instance of the plaintiffs and renew it periodically every two years along with 12% interest. The suit is barred by limitation by virtue of Article 22 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, the first defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 4. The gist and kernel of the averments in the written statement filed by the second and the third defendants would run thus: The third defendant is carrying on the business as sole proprietor and the second defendant is the business name of the third defendant. The second defendant issued deposit memorandums for a sum of Rs.29,000/-for a term of two years with effect from 111. 1976 at the instance of the plaintiffs. Interests accrued were paid periodically on the fixed deposits and for that cheques were issued and despatched by the third defendants Managerial and Secretarial agent, the first defendant. During the year 1978, the initial fixed deposits got matured, which were renewed for a period of two years at the behest of the plaintiffs and the renewed deposits got matured on 111. 1978. Interest was paid up to the date of maturity. After 111. 1980, there was no renewal of the fixed deposit. Those fixed deposits were not surrendered to the second defendant for receiving the matured amount. 1978. Interest was paid up to the date of maturity. After 111. 1980, there was no renewal of the fixed deposit. Those fixed deposits were not surrendered to the second defendant for receiving the matured amount. Only during the year 1988, the plaintiffs approached the defendants demanding the fixed deposit amount with interest for which, the defendants denied their liability. However, treating it as a special case, on accepting the indemnity bond from the plaintiff, the fixed deposit amount of Rs.29,000/- was returned without prejudice to the contention of the defendants that they were not liable to pay interest. The suit is barred by limitation and accordingly they prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 5. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During the trial, the second plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and Exs.1 to 37 were marked. On the defendants side, their official DW1 was examined. Exs.B1 to B7 were marked during cross of PW1. The trial Court ultimately dismissed the suit. 6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal on the following grounds among others: The judgment and decree of the trial court is against law. The trial court was wrong in holding that the defendants were not liable to pay interest on fixed deposits in the event of non renewal after the maturity period. The trial Court failed to consider that defendants 1 to 3 agreed to pay interest and only on that assurance the plaintiffs allowed the defendants to retain the deposits maintained by the defendants. The trial Court did not consider the fact that after the maturity period, the defendants did not inform the plaintiffs to receive back the money due under the fixed deposits. The plaintiffs, being depositors, did not know the limitations as contended by the defendants in their written statement. The evidence of DW1 is untenable. Even though the plaintiffs got an order from the Court directing the defendants to produce certain documents, the latter did not produce the documents and accordingly the plaintiffs prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the defendants prayed for dismissal. 7. The points for determination are: 1. Whether the original suit was barred by limitation? 2. 7. The points for determination are: 1. Whether the original suit was barred by limitation? 2. Whether the defendants agreed orally during the year 1980, to renew the fixed deposits with accrued interest even after maturity, periodically every two years and whether there was any infirmity in the judgment and decree of the trial Court? 8. These two points are taken together for discussion as they are inter linked and interwoven with each other. 9. The nitty gritty of the case of the plaintiff is that the defendants orally agreed to renew the five fixed deposits for a sum of Rs.29,000/-, even after the maturity date of 111. 1880, whereupon the plaintiffs were under the impression that they could get back the amount of Rs.29,000/-with accrued interest subsequently; whereas to the surprise and shock, the defendants turned turtle and had an volte-face and came forward only to pay a sum of Rs.29,000/-without interest accrued thereon ever since 111. 1980 till May 1988. 10. On the contrary, tersely and pithily, the case of the defendants is that after the maturity on 111. 1980 absolutely, there was no oral agreement to renew periodically the fixed deposits; that they did not agree to pay interest thereon also and that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court without deciding the issue No.3 relating to limitation, simply held that there was no necessity to decide on limitation as the plaintiffs failed to prove the alleged oral agreement for renewal. This approach of the trial Court was wrong in my opinion. The trial court should have decided the issue from the available evidence as to whether the suit was barred by limitation or not; de hors the finding of the trial Court under issue No.1 that the plaintiffs failed to prove their alleged oral renewal. 11. It is therefore, crystal clear that according to the defendants even though those fixed deposit receipts got matured as early as on 111. 1980 and by the year 1988, the three years period as contemplated under Article 22 of the Indian Limitation Act got expired, yet they as a special case, paid the fixed deposit amount of Rs.29.000/- without interest, as after 111. 1980, there was no renewal of the fixed deposits. 1980 and by the year 1988, the three years period as contemplated under Article 22 of the Indian Limitation Act got expired, yet they as a special case, paid the fixed deposit amount of Rs.29.000/- without interest, as after 111. 1980, there was no renewal of the fixed deposits. However, waiving such limitation embargo available in favour of the defendants, they as a special case, did choose to pay the sum of Rs.29,000/-Indubitably and admittedly, the defendants after accepting the indemnity bond Ex.B2 dated 09.08.1988, in view of the plaintiffs having been unable to produce the original fixed deposit receipts, released the amount of Rs.29,000/- without prejudice to the rights of the defendants contention that they are not liable to pay any interest after 111. 1980. 12. The perusal of the written statement as well as Ex.B2, would clearly demonstrate that the defendants did not intend to refuse to pay interest based on limitation plea; but based on the plea that there was no renewal of fixed deposits at all. As such, according to the defendants by their conduct, they explicitly exfoliated that, if legally the interest had been due, then irrespective of limitation period, they would have paid the interest amount along with the principal sum of Rs.29,000/-. It is therefore, obvious and axiomatic that the plaintiffs waived the limitation and in such a case, it is only an after thought on the part of the defendants to plead that they waived the limitation only in respect of repayment of Rs.29,000/- only and not towards interest. 13. At this juncture, my mind is redolent with the excerpt from the Blacks Law Dictionary - VI Edition, which is extracted here under for easy reference:- Cuilibet licet juri prose introducto renunciare (Any one may waive or renounce the benefit of a principle or rule of Saw that exists only for his protection). It is therefore, clear in this case, that the three years limitation period, as contemplated under the law was waived by the defendants. 14. It is therefore, clear in this case, that the three years limitation period, as contemplated under the law was waived by the defendants. 14. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would develop his argument to the effect that the three years limitation should be calculated only from the date of demand as per Article 22 of the Limitation Act; the demand itself was made by the plaintiffs only in the year 1988, admittedly, as revealed by, Ex.A-31 dated 24.03.1988 and that the suit was filed within the limitation period, i.e., during the year 1988 itself. Such an argument cannot be countenanced as correct for the reason that the fixed deposits got matured even in the year 1980 whereas the demand was made almost after eight years. There is nothing to show that fixed deposit amounts are repayable only on demand. On maturity, the fixed deposits are payable, whereupon it becomes a debt liability on the part of the financier to repay the amount in favour of the depositor. As such, the plaintiffs claim for interest could only be considered by pressing into service the legal maxim cited supra, that the defendants waived their rights of limitation, which was contemplated under the law to protect the welfare of the defendants. 15. I would also like to extract an excerpt from the famous thesis "Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes- 12th Edition, viz., "Every one has a right to waive and to agree to waive the advantage of a law made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in his private capacity, which may be dispensed with without infringing any public right or public policy, Cuilibet licet renuntiare juri pro se introducto. So a person may agree to waive the benefit of the Limitation Act." However, while holding so, I am fully conscious of the fact that the claim for interest for more than three years is untenable as Article 113 of the Limitation Act would clearly indicate that only three years period is available to sue from the date of arisal of the cause of action. As such, it is a trite opposition that interest for more then three years on the amount due cannot be claimed. On that basis, it could rightly be held that the claim for interest from 111. 1980 till May 1988 is untenable and only the claim for interest for three years could be considered. As such, it is a trite opposition that interest for more then three years on the amount due cannot be claimed. On that basis, it could rightly be held that the claim for interest from 111. 1980 till May 1988 is untenable and only the claim for interest for three years could be considered. 16. In fact, the trial Court should have decided the limitation issue No.3 on the aforesaid basis. 17. The next phase of analysis is relating to the alleged plea of oral agreement for renewal. Learned counsel for the defendants appropriately and appositely, correctly and convincingly would submit that as against the written agreement, there cannot be any contrary evidence. Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, would contemplate that oral evidence so as to replace the terms and conditions of the written agreement, is barred. 18. Here admittedly, the fixed deposits were renewed periodically from time to time but from 111. 1980; they were not renewed and that itself is indicative of the fact that the fixed deposit was renewable in writing only. But, in this case, the fixed deposits were not renewed in writing. Ex.B3 is the application for fixed deposit, which would highlight that the plaintiffs read the rules made by the defendants relating to fixed deposits and they agreed to it. It is therefore, clear that fixed deposits should be in writing and there cannot be any oral fixed deposits or renewal of the same. 19. Unassailably, the second plaintiff was working under the defendants till 1983 or 1984 and in such a case, it is not known as to what prevented the plaintiffs in getting the fixed deposits renewed as they did earlier twice up to November 1980 ever since 1976. Absolutely, there is no convincing reason set out for not having got renewed the fixed deposits. 20. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the defendants would argue that there was inter se dispute between the plaintiffs so as to say between the mother and the son and due to that the plaintiffs could not produce the fixed deposits either for renewal or for getting refund of the amounts due. However, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would refute such a plea and submit that there is no evidence on the side of the defendants to that effect. However, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would refute such a plea and submit that there is no evidence on the side of the defendants to that effect. Be that as it may, this Court is concerned with the available evidence alone. Trite the proposition of law is that preponderance of probabilities would govern the adjudication in civil case. To the risk of repetition, without being tautologous, I would like to point out that the second plaintiff, who was an official working under the defendants, should have known about all these procedures and he cannot contend as though, PW1 was not aware of all those rules and regulations. Even in the grounds of appeal, the appellants/plaintiffs unsuccessfully contended as though they were not aware of the restrictions in claiming interest as pleaded by the defendants. 21. At this context, it is just and necessary to refer to the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs to the effect that the defendants were putting forth the plea that the second defendant was not competent to receive fixed deposits in view of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; hence, they agreed to retain the matured amount on oral basis as fixed deposits for every two years and that the interests accrued would also be retained by them. 22. Learned counsel for the defendants drew the attention of this Court to Chapter III-C of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, which came into vogue for the first time only w.e.f. 112. 1984 so as to say long after those fixed deposits got matured. Incontrovertibly those fixed deposits got matured even as on 15 / 111. 1980 and in such a case, the defendants had no reason to put forth such an imaginary embargo based on Chapter III-C of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. It is therefore clear, that earner to 1984, the second defendant had no impediment to accept the fixed deposits. In such a case, it is crystal clear that the plea of the plaintiffs that there was an oral agreement for renewal, is nothing but a mere after thought so as to obtain from the defendants by hook or by crook huge interest for the entire period from 111. 1980 till May 1988. 23. In such a case, it is crystal clear that the plea of the plaintiffs that there was an oral agreement for renewal, is nothing but a mere after thought so as to obtain from the defendants by hook or by crook huge interest for the entire period from 111. 1980 till May 1988. 23. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would argue that there should be some reason on the part of the defendants in retaining the fixed deposit money and utilising it for eight years in unlawful enrichment of the company. Whereas the learned counsel for the defendants would contend that absolutely there was no unlawful enrichment as after maturity, the sum of Rs.29,000/- was set apart in the Current Account of the defendant and it was not utilised for business purpose so as to generate income. However, the defendants have not adduced any evidence in that regard even though the plaintiff in para No. 10 has stated as follows: ... in any event, they had utilised the amount for their benefits." The defendants being a running business concern should have produced evidence so as to contradict the plaint averment that the defendants did not enrich themselves out of that Rs.29,000/- Hence, in such a case to that limited extent it can be held to the effect that the defendants derived benefits out of Rs.29,000/-fixed deposit, even after those fixed deposits got matured as on 15/111. 1980, Hence, in such a case, this Court would be justified in awarding simple interest for a period of three years at the rate of 12% p.a on Rs.29,000/-, when the plaintiffs claimed imaginary compound interest for eight years without any rhyme or reason on legal basis. 24. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would contend that no man having head over shoulder would keep quiet without getting the fixed deposit renewed and that even demanding back the amount for a period of eight years and that preponderance of probabilities are in favour of the plaintiffs case. 25. As has been highlighted by me supra, it could rightly be understood from the circumstances that between the second plaintiff, the employee of the defendants company and the defendants there were some understandings and that alone was the reason for the plaintiffs in not demanding the amount in writing from the defendants and also the defendants in not informing the plaintiffs about the maturity. Only on that basis, I am inclined to award simple interest for three years. Simply because, I have held that there were some understanding between the two sides, it cannot be construed that the plea of the plaintiffs in toto is acceptable. 26. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would put forth his submission that as per the business custom of the defendants, they were in the habit of issuing notice to the depositors on maturity. But, in this case, that was not done so whereas the learned counsel for the defendants would try to expound unsuccessfully as though an unregistered letter was sent to the plaintiff relating to maturity of the fixed deposits. In the absence of evidence to prove such a plea on the side of the defendants, it cannot be accepted, it may be true that the defendants might not be duty bound to inform about the maturity to the plaintiffs even then, the non-adherance to the customary practice insofar this matter is concerned would pave way for thinking that between the second plaintiff, who was an employee with the defendants and the defendants, there were some understandings. But both of them did not ,convincingly explain as to what was that real understanding. The fact also remains that the defendants waiving the limitation period, repaid to the plaintiffs, a sum of Rs.29,000/-, which was deposited with them, which partially lends support to plaintiffs contention, But interest alone have not come forward. 27. I am of the considered opinion, in this factual matrix, that the defendants should have paid at least 12% simple interest on Rs.29,000/-for a period of three years. But they failed to do so. As has been highlighted by me supra, for the entire eight years and that too, in the absence of renewal of fixed deposits, the plaintiffs cannot recover interest. But that would recover interest only for three years and that in view of the fact that the defendants themselves waived such limitation relating to the fixed deposit amount of Rs.29,000/-. Obvious, as it is, interest for more than three years would not accrue under normal circumstances. 28. Simply because, the defendants waived limitations it cannot be taken that they waived limitation for the entire period of eight years so to say from 111. 1980 to May 1988. Obvious, as it is, interest for more than three years would not accrue under normal circumstances. 28. Simply because, the defendants waived limitations it cannot be taken that they waived limitation for the entire period of eight years so to say from 111. 1980 to May 1988. Belaboring under the misconception that they are not liable to pay interest they refused to pay interest. But as per the general law as referred to supra, the defendants are liable to pay simple interest for a period of three years. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that interest for a period of three years is payable by the defendants at the rate of 12% on Rs.29,000/-and as such it works out to Rs,29,000 x 12% x 3 = Rs.10,440/-. 29. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also cited an unreported judgment of this Court (M/s.Sree Visaam Chit Fund Ltd. and others vs. N.Krishnamoorthy) in CrL.M.P.No.6113 of 1977 dated 012. 1978, which is relating to a criminal complaint lodged by the Deputy Chief Officer, Department of Non-banking companies as against Sri Visalam Chit Funds Ltd., which preferred criminal miscellaneous petition for getting quashment of the complaint before this Court, it is apparent that the facts involved here are entirely different from the cited said case and therefore, it is not germane for deciding this case. 30. Accordingly, both these points are decided. 31. The trial Court without adhering to the aforesaid ratiocination, simply carried away by the plea that interest is not all payable by virtue of condition No.5 as found in Ex.B3. In view of the reasons given deciding the aforesaid point, the judgment and decree of the trial court are set aside and the suit is partly decreed as under. The defendant Nos.4 to 7, being the legal heirs of defendants 2 and 3, are directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.10,440/-(Ten thousand four hundred and forty only) to the plaintiffs as interest for a period of three years. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The parties are directed to bear the respective costs.