A RAMAVEL Vs. PANDYAN AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff, respondent herein, who is a dealer in automobile parts, filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,395. 72 with future interest. His case was that he has supplied motor car parts to the defendant on various occasions between 29-7-1958 and 31-10-1961 and that in respect of those supplies of goods the suit amount was due. While calculating the amount due, he has also calculated interest periodically and added it and has claimed compound interest. The appellant filed a written statement in which he raised two main contentions; Firstly, the supply on credit of the goods was not to the defendant personally but to his father and brother-in-law, one V. K. Jagannathan. It was further contended that the calculation of compound interest is wrong and that only a sum of Rs. 4,027. 21 would be due under the account if his other contentions fail. There was also the plea that the suit was barred by limitation.

(2.) BOTH the courts below have concurrently held that the supply of goods was to the defendant personally and not to his father or brother-in-law and that therefore he was liable to pay the suit amount. Though the learned counsel for the appellant challenged this finding, I find that the finding is supported by both documentary and oral evidence and that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with that finding.

(3.) ON the question of limitation, both the courts below have held that Ex. A-78, which is a cheque dated 17-3-1960 executed by V. K. Jagannathan in favor of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 563/-, which was given by the defendant to the plaintiff would amount to an 'acknowledgment' of liability, and that, therefore, the suit was within time. In the plaint, the plaintiff stated that the suit was not barred by limitation because of Article 64 of the Limitation Act of 1908 and in view of the payment by cheque of the sum of Rs. 563/- on 17-3-1960. I fail to see how Article 64 of the Limitation Act of 1908, which corresponds to Article 26 of the Limitation act of 1963, would in any way save the suit from the bar of time. The 'statement of account' referred to in that Article is a statement signed by the debtor or his duly authorized agent. There is no statement signed by the defendant or his duly authorized agent, produced in this case. Therefore, Article 64 of the old Act is not applicable to this case.