(1.) THE plaintiff, a dealer in iron and brass vessels, filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 466-15 which is inclusive of interest at 6 p. c. per annum on the amounts due on sale of goods. The transactions are four in number and evidenced by bills Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 9 in Ex. A-1. Pursuant to a requisition for supply under Ex. A 5, goods under bill No. 3 were sent by lorry under Ex. A 4. Goods under bill No. 5 were sent under cover of lorry receipt Ex. A. 11. Certain adjustments as per Ex. B. 6 (the pattial of the defendant) were made by the plaintiff in this bill for goods supplied by the defendant. Goods under bill No. 7 were sent by lorry under Ex. A. 10. Even so at the request of the defendant under Ex. A. 12, goods were supplied under bill No. 9 and Ex. A. 8 and A. 12 also supporting such a supply.
(2.) THE goods supplied under bill No. 7 is a transaction which is admitted, but is said to be a cash transaction. The learned District Munsif who tried the suit in an elaborate discussion of his on the oral and documentary evidence, found the following--
(3.) IN fact, the learned District Munsif was of the view that the plaintiff on whom the burden lay, discharged his onus and found as a matter of fact that the dealings are true and the amount claimed is correct. These are findings of fact and no question of jurisdiction arises.