MONORAMA DASI Vs. ANIL KUMAR GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question of law involved in this appeal is whether a statement of accounts made in a hatchita by the defendant, where no balance has been struck, and where there is no agreement by the debtor, express or implied, that the difference between the credit and debit sides is payable to the creditor is governed by Article 64 of the Indian Limitation Act.

(2.) The above question of law has arisen from the following facts and circumstances about which there is no dispute between the parties at present, Respondent Anil Kumar Ghose who is a contractor took advances of money from the deceased husband of the appellant from time to time. He also made payments from time to time. All these transactions-were entered in a hatchita book which was kept in the custody of the creditor. The hatchita book was marked exhibit 1 in the trial Court. The hatchita would show that accounts were opened on 4th Kartic, 1349 B. S. During the month of Kartic of that year, a sum of Rs. 1600/- was advanced in all to the debtor. This amount was- fully repaid on 3rd Agrahayan, 1349 B. S. After that a sum of Rs. 1930/- was advanced to the debtor in several items from 7th Agrahayan to 29th Magh, 1349 B. S. As against these receipts, the debtor paid in all a sum of Rs. 1210/-. On 10th Sraban 1354 B. S., there was a sort of adjustment of accounts. The receipts commencing from 7th Agrahayan, 1349 B. S., were totalled up, and the debtor himself made an entry in the hatchita that the receipts amounted to a sum of Rs. 1930/-. Similarly the payments made by the debtor were totalled up, and the debtor made an entry in the hatchita that the total amount of payment was a sum of R.s. 1210/-. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff appellant for recovery of the difference between the receipts and the payments together with interest at 12 per cent, per annum. The total amount of claim was Rs. 892/12/9.

(3.) The main defence of the defendant with which I am concerned in this appeal was that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation inasmuch as limitation should run from the date o each advance. This defence was negatived by the trial Court which held that Article 64 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act governs this case, and so limitation- should run from the date of the statement of accounts, The suit was brought within three years of the date of the alleged adjustment of accounts, and so the trial Court decreed the claim of the plaintiff in part by reducing the rate of interest to six per cent, per annum.