TALLAM SAMBASIVARAO Vs. SANISETTI BHADRAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff was a farmer By farmer's toil, which Adam Smith adored as belonging to the economic category of productive labour, but which Gray feared ambition might some time mock at he grew at chillies on his fields. The plaintiff had sola and delivered this produce to the 1st defendant on 26-7 68. But the 1st defendant did not pay him the price of his goods For recovery of the sale price the plaintiff had, therefore filed on 7-12-71 O.S No 1591/71 in the District Munsif's Court, Guntur, The plaintiff claimed a total price ct RE 4,463-46 from the 1st defendant. This amount was arrived at by calculating the price cf the chillies sold with reference to the Guntur Market rate of rew chilles prevailing on 16-4 69 minus Rs.26-00 The suit was filed beyond 3 years from 26-7-67 although it was within 3 years from 16-4-69. Ihe first defendant filed a written statement contesting the suit. The 1st defendant denied that he ever purchased chillies from the plaintiff. His case was that the goods were en trusted to him to be sold for commission. In paragraph No,4 of his written statement he stated that the 1st defendant never purchased 1129 Kilograms or any quantity out of the best quality of chillies on 26-7 68 or on any other date......The allegation that the price of the best quality was agreed to be the market rate of the new chillies as would be on any date on or before 16-4-69 at Guntur as fixed by plaintiff deducting Rs.26/ per quintal is false.

(2.) He also took up the plea that the suit for recovery of the price was filed beyond three years calculated from the date of sale on 26-7-68 and was, therefore, barred by limitation. Defendants 2,3 and 4 were the sons of the first defendant and they were added as party defendants to the suit in order to make the joint family property liable to be proceeded against in execution.

(3.) The trial Court has framed the necessary issues and recorded oral and documentary evidence, and decreed the suit. On trial, it found that the 1st defendant purchased the chillies from the plaintiff and was therefore, liable to pay the price of the pords to the plaintiff. It also held that the claim was not barred by limitation- The trial Court found that the period of limitation started running not from 26-7 68 but from 16-4-69. Against that judgment of the trial Court, the 1 st defendant, 2nd defendant and 4th defendant filed A S.No 98/77 before the District Judge, Quntur. The Appellate Court while concurring with the trial Court on the primary issue regarding the sale of chillies, disagreed with the trial Court on the question of limitation and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. It is against this order of the District Judge, Guntur. the present Second Appeal has been filed.