ABUBACKER OOMERKUTTY Vs. I S AND C MACHADO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only contention that was urged before us in this appeal against the decision of the District Court of Quilon in O.S. No. 8 of 1122 was that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs and defendant are merchants, and the suit was for the balance due as per the account maintained in respect of the dealings between the parties.

(2.) If the account can be considered as mutual, open and current it is admitted that the suit was within time. The contention before the lower court that even if it was mutual, open and current, the suit was barred by limitation because the Malayalam year should be the basis of the reckoning, has not been agitated before us. The lower court has held, and rightly, that the account was kept according to the "English" year and that the year which is material is the year according to which the account has been kept.

(3.) The object of Art.85 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, of which Art.72 of the Travancore Limitation Act, VI of 1100 is a copy, was as pointed out by Rankin, C. J., in AIR 1931 Cal. 359 "to apply to a certain type of cases the old Common Law of acknowledgment, to exempt the plaintiff from the principle that limitation runs against each item from its date and to provide that if the last item is within time, it will draw all the previous items after it however old they may be although there has been no acknowledgment sufficient to comply with the conditions imposed by S.19 of the Act."