KOCHAPPU ALIAS DEVASSY Vs. KAKKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendants in a suit for recovery of Rs.11,226.36 and the interest thereon claimed by the plaintiff as due under a pattuvaravu account which the defendants are said to have had with the plaintiffs from 1135 onwards.It is said that the defendants are jointly running a business in the name 'Maveli Lazar Ouseph and Sons 'and for the purpose of their business,they were,from time to time,purchasing goods from the business of the plaintiff.According to the plaintiff amount was due under this account and inspite of demand that was not discharged and hence the suit had to be filed.The defence set up by the defendants in the suit was that the purchases were being made from time to time and payments were also being made as against particular bills so much so it could not be said that there was such dealing as mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint but only separate purchases of goods from time to time.On the basis of this a plea of limitation was also set up.According to the defendants,at any rate,at least a part of the suit claim was barred.

(2.) THE only question with which we are concerned in this appeal is the plea of limitation urged by the defendant,but found against by the court below.According to the defendants,the rule of limitation which would apply is article 52 of the Indian Limitation Act,1908(which is the Act applicable to the suit)and therefore the plaintiff will have only a period of three years to sue from the dates of delivery of the goods sold to the defendants from time to time.Such of those sales which were beyond the period of three years would therefore be barred.The suit is filed on 11th January 1963.The last of the purchases by the defendants from the plaintiff firm was on 12th Makaram 1135.Of course,that purchase would be within three years of the suit.But the claim for price of purchases prior to 11th January 1960 would be barred by limitation if there be no ground to hold that article 52 may not apply.

(3.) THE court below has found that Exts.P -11(a)and P -12(a)which are the endorsements on the kuri pass -book operate to save limitation as there is an acknowledgment of the liability of the defendants under the transactions to the plaintiffs in these endorsements and these endorsements are well within three years of the suit.It has further been found that a forwarding letter Ext.P -17 which was said to have accompanied a draft sent to the plaintiffs in 1136 Vrischigom would also operate as an acknowledgment.