RAMRATAN Vs. CHATURBHUJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff's filed a suit against the defendants on the allegations that the defendants were the members of the Joint Hindu Family and that the defendant No. 2 was the Karta, that they had money dealings with the plaintiffs. On various dates different sums of money and goods wers supplied to the defendants and those with which we are mainly concerned are the amounts of Rs. 150/ - (given on 5 -9 -51) and Rs. 491/ - (given on 7 -9 -51). Both these sums were put in the account of defendants, and defendant No. 2 as the Karta signed the entries. On adding up all the various sums, an amount of Rs. 640/12/ - was found due by the defendants. On 13 -2 -53, defendant No.2 (Karta) paid Rs. 100/ - and signed the entry of payment in the plaintiffs' account -book. The plaintiffs filed this suit for the recovery of balance due. In their written statement, defendant No. 2 (Karta) admitted dealings with the plaintiffs. He also admitted that a sum of Rs. 153/ - was due, but denied borrowing Rs. 491/ -. He also admitted payment to the plaintiffs of a sum of Rs. 100/ - as alleged by the plaintiffs, though defendant No. 2 when examined denied this payment.

(2.) THE trial Court held that the transactions prior to 3 -9 -52 were time barred and only passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 66/ -. On appeal the first appellate Court held that the payment of Rs. 100/ - was made towards all the debts collectively and that this prevented the debts from being barred by the statute of limitation. Against this, the defendants have filed this second appeal.

(3.) AS a general rule there is no doubt that when a creditor has advanced different sums of moneys at different times, the period of limitation would run in respect of each sum from the date when it was advanced, but the facts of this case are different.