PARASURAMAN Vs. PURUSHOTHAMAN AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE scope and ambit of a co-heir's authority to enlarge the period of limitation as against the other co-heirs or co-owners by an acknowledgment of liability or payment of interest or principal is the main question that arises in this appeal. As the answer to this question would, to a great extent, be influenced by the facts and circumstances of the case, it is only proper that we give a rather detailed history of the case. Purushothaman and Company, a partnership firm of which one T. V. Naganathan who has filed this suit, from which the appeal arises, on behalf of the firm and the 1st defendant are partners, were doing business in purchase and sale of paddy from 1961 onwards. One Sri N. S. Vaidyanatha Iyer, father of defendants 1 to 10 and husband of the 11th defendant was the proprietor of Sri Balasubramania Rice mills. The place of business of the firm as well as the rice mill was in Trichur town. The plaintiff-firm was having its office in one of the rooms of a building belonging to Sri Vaidyanatha Iyer and was situated adjacent to the Rice Mills. The paddy purchased by the plaintiff-firm was being hulled in the said Rice mills. The hulling charges as well as the rent due for the room used as office were being credited in an account kept by the plaintiff in the name of the Rice mills. Large amounts were being advanced by the plaintiff to Vaidyanatha Iyer for the running and maintenance of the Rice Mills, which amounts were also debited in the said accounts. Sri Vaidyanatha Iyer had undertaken to repay the amounts so taken with interest. According to the plaintiff, there was thus mutual, open and current accounts between the plaintiff-firm and the Rice Mills from 1961 onwards.

(2.) THERE was a temporary break in the plaintiff's business in 1965 on account of the Paddy Control Order. Vaidyanatha Iyer died in January, 1968. At the time of his death more than Rs. 60,000 were outstanding to be paid by him to the plaintiff-firm. It is the plaintiff's case that Vaidyanatha Iyer during his lifetime had acknowledged his liability to pay the amount due from him in accordance with the accounts. The original plaint filed proceeds on the basis that after the death of Vaidyanatha Iyer, the defendants as members of a joint Hindu family became liable for the amount concerned, and the first defendant as the manager of the family executed in favour of the plaintiff a pass book evidencing the debt of the Rice Mills and personally undertaking to discharge the same. Small payments made by the 1st defendant subsequently, were entered in the pass book towards the outstanding debt. Plaintiff further proceeds to state that during the lifetime of Vaidyanatha Iyer the 1st defendant was solely attending to the management of the Rice Mills and all the properties including in the Rice mill inherited by the defendants from Vaidyanatha Iyer came into possession of the 1st defendant after his death. The 1st defendant managed the properties and continued the business for and on behalf of all the defendants, according to the plaintiffs' case. It is alleged that the acknowledgments and part payments made by the 1st defendant were in the course of such management and as the duly authorised agent in law of the other co-heirs of Vaidyanatha Iyer, namely defendants 2 to 11. As on 1-4-1971 a sum of Rs. 36,261. 55 was outstanding to be paid to the plaintiff. Interest at the rate of 9% per annum is claimed in the plaint from 1-4-1971 as being due to the plaintiff. The liability of the defendants are sought to be fastened, on the basis of their being members of the joint family as such and also as heirs of deceased Vaidyanatha Iyer. The 1st defendant is said to be personally liable to discharge the amounts. The plaint is brought forward on the allegation that in spite of demand the defendants are refusing to pay the amount. The 1st defendant though a partner of the firm is brought on the party array, as a defendant as he is one of the persons liable to pay the amount sued for.

(3.) THE 1st defendant himself and defendants 2, 3, 7 10 and 11 together filed written statements in the case. Subsequently an additional written statement was filed by defendants 2 to 11.