N. ETHIRAJULU NAIDU Vs. K. R. CHINNIKRISHNAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant appeals. The suit out of which the appeal arises was laid by Chinnikrishnan Chettiar, the plaintiff, against the appellant Ethirajulu Naidu for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 9850 allegedly due on an account stated by the plaintiff and signed by the defendant on 80 -5 -1964. In the plaint, it was alleged that the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 7000 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12 per cent per annum thereon. According to the plaint, on 30 -5 -1964, the plaintiff demanded from the defendant the repayment of Rs. 8330 representing Rs. 7000 on account of principal and Rupees 1330 on account of interest. On the date of demand, 30 -5 -1964, the defendant is alleged to have paid a sum of Rs. 500 towards interest and demanded an account, whereupon an account stated was prepared then and there by the plaintiff. The defendant after verifying the same put his signature to it on the same day, 30 -5 -1964. It was further alleged in the plaint that on 30 -3 -1965, the defendant paid a further sum of Rs. 500 towards interest, but failed and neglected to pay the balance. Hence the suit.

(2.) THE defendant in his answer denied that he ever borrowed any amount at any time from the plaintiff. He also denied specifically the alleged borrowing of a sum of Rs. 7000, the demand by the plaintiff for the repayment on 30 -5 -1964, the alleged payment of a sum of Rs. 500 towards interest on that date, the preparation by the plaintiff on the account stated and the alleged acknowledgment by the defendant of the account stated by putting his signature thereto. The defendant also denied that on 30 -3 -1965 he paid a sum of Rs. 500 towards the alleged dues. The case of the defendant was that he, as a tin -can manufacturer, used to receive supply of old tin sheets and new tin sheets from the plaintiff and would manufacture out of that material snuff boxes and supply the same in different sizes to the plaintiff, who is a dealer in snuff. In the course of the dealings, the plaintiff used to take the signature of the defendant in a note book as a token of his having received the raw materials. The defendant is an illiterate person, who had learnt only to sign his name in Tamil and English for the purpose of bank transactions in the course of his business. There were occasions when the defendant signed his name in the plaintiff's note book, on the plaintiff telling him that he would later fill the space above the defendant's signature with the terms of the agreement as to the rate of the labour charges for manufacture of tin boxes. The defendant also used to sign his name in a chittai whenever labour charges are paid to him by the plaintiff. Misunderstandings broke out between the plaintiff and the defendant in April 1967, with reference to the labour charges. According to the defendant, the plaintiff must have made use of the signature of the defendant in the plaintiff's note book acknowledging receipt or raw materials or receipt of labour charges for the purpose of cooking up the account on foot of which this suit has been filed.

(3.) THE points that arise for determination are : -