PURUSHOTHAM RANCHODDAS SAIT Vs. RAMASWAMI IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question for decision is, whether the suit is barred under Article 85 of the Indian Limitation Act. The two courts have held that it is not barred. Hence this Second Appeal by the first defendant.

(2.) The course of dealings between the parties has been found thus and has not been disputed before me. The plaintiff who represents a firm, had advanced various sums of money from time to time to the first defendant who represents another firm and the latter had supplied goods such as jaggery, tapioca, chillies, mustard, etc., to the former for sale on commission. The plaintiff sold them and debited the proceeds against the advances made claiming the commission for himself. The amount sued for was the balance due from the defendant to the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the first defendant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Forest Company v. Lal Chand ( AIR 1959 SC 1349 ) in support of the contention, that the account sued on is not a mutual account within the meaning of Article 85. In that case, the respondents in the Supreme Court had agreed to supply goods in specified quantities at specified times to the appellant, and the latter had made an immediate payment of Rs. 3000 and agreed to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- within ten or twelve days as advance and the balance due for the price of the goods delivered after the expiry of every month. The Court accepted the test laid down by Rankin C. J. in Tea Financing Syndicate Ltd. v. Chandrakamal (ILR 58 Calcutta 649) and held that in the case before it, what took place was

(3.) It seems to me, that the present case comes directly within the scope of the case decided by Rankin C. J. There, the plaintiff agreed to make advances to the defendant to the extent of Rs. 80,000 to enable him to carry on his tea estate and the defendant secured to the plaintiff the crop of the estate for a specified season and agreed to despatch the tea grown in his estate to the plaintiff, in order that it may be sold by the plaintiff by public auction. Rankin C. J. laid down the test, which was accepted by the Supreme Court, to ascertain mutuality, in the following terms: