P.MURUGAYYA PILLAI Vs. S. SOMASUNDARAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I agree with my learned brother in the conclusion arrived at by him that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate the agreement set up by him and, there -fore, there is no reason whatever to hold that the business in cocoanuts and plantains run in the vilasam of the third defendant from 1939 was a continuation of the old family business.

(2.) ON the question of law raised with regard to the burden of proof in a case like this where the person liable to account is not alive at the lime the account has to be taken and his legal representative in view of the inheritance of his property has to render accounts, it seems to me that there is an initial burden on the plaintiff who asks for accounts to show that the individual liable to account has not discharged his burden in regard to Sums of money that have come into his hands. Where the principal uses his agent for rendition of accounts and the burden falls upon the legal representative of the agent what is to he the onus: Spencer and Odgers, JJ. in Venkatacharyulu v. Mohana Panda ILR 41 Mad 214: AIR 1921 Mad 407 observed as follows:

(3.) I am in agreement with my learned brother on the rest of the points involved in the appeal. Ramaswami, J.