YALEMELI S S Vs. CHANABBASAPPA BASAPPA WARAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15-12-1971 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gadag, in RA. No. 50 of 1971 on his file reversing the judgment and decree dated 15-1-1960 passed by the learned Munsiff, Laxmeshwar, in LC Civil Suit No. 24 pf 1955 on his file.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted a suit on 6-6-1955 against three defendants praying for a decree against them for rendering accounts in respect of the transactions carried on through tippan accounts and for recovering the amount that may be found due on taking accounts. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father Shivappa Yelamali was running a grocery shop at Laxmeshwar. His father was/running the, business till his death on 12-12-1948. The present plaintiff is the elder of the two sons. He is at present carrying on the business of the shop. At the time of the death of the plaintiff's father, plaintiff was a minor and his monther-third defendant was his guardian. The first defendant in the suit is the maternal uncle of the plaintiff. During the minority pf the plaintiff, the first defendant was managing the business of the grocery shop. The second defendant was engaged by his father as a clerk in the shop and even after the death of Shivappa, second defendant continued as a Clerk in the shop. After the death of Shivappa, the first defendant was managing the shop. Third defendant was the guardian of the minor plaintiff being his mother. Thus, the plaintiff has sought accounts from the defendants.

(3.) First defendant by his written statement affirmed that he had no connection with the shop of the plainitff. Third defendant similarly contended that she had nothing to do with the management of the shop. The second defendant contended that he was only a Clerk in the shop; that the shop was run under the supervision of the third defendant who was the guardian of the minor plaintiff; that the collections from the shop were being handed over to her everyday and since he was only a Clerk in the shop he was not liable to render accounts. The suit was not maintainable against him. He also contended that the suit was barred by limitation. He w'as not in possession of any documents or books of accounts and that the plaintiff was in possession of them all.