SATAPPA JAKAPPA KOCHCHERI Vs. ANNAPPA BASAPPA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly these. The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 2,000, or such other sum as may be found due on the accounts between them and the defendants, alleging that the plaintiffs had dealings with the defendants extending over a long period commencing in the year 1897. Defendants Nos. 1 to 11 formed a joint family and had their business at Belgaum. All the defendants except defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 6 admitted the plaintiffs claim, but defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 6 contended that the plaintiffs claim was out of time. It appears from the plaint that the date of the cause of action was first stated as follows:- "On July 1, 1916, when the Receiver refused to pay off or in July 1917 when the defendants shop was closed or in November 1916 i.e. at the end of the commercial year," But apparently this was scored out and by an amendment the following was substituted for it "from October 30, 1897, on respective dates on which the dealings were effected." There was also an amendment in paragraph 6 of the plaint, wherein it is stated : "In the said shop at the end of every year, the balance has been shown in the name of the said Annapa, This has been done up to July 18, 1917, and this suit is brought within three years from this date, and in the former suit it has been admitted by Annapa Basapa and Bhairapa Basapa that it is an amount of deposit and that interest has been paid from time to time. Therefore the plaintiffs suit is not barred by limitation. Though interest was not paid off every three years, it was shown as balance every year, and also because it was an amount of deposit, the suit is not barred by limitation."

(2.) I may also mention that in the partition suit relating to the defendant's family, the present plaintiffs were joined as parties, and because some of the defendants objected to the Receiver who was appointed in that suit paying the amount now in question, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) The only question of importance between the parties was one of limitation. The trial Court decided against the plaintiffs on the ground that these were not deposits but loans, and it held that the mere book entry of interest from year to year would not bring the case within the scope of Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act. Therefore it decided to allow only those items to the plaintiffs which were admittedly within three years prior to the date of the suit deducting those payments which were made within that period, treating the current account as really beginning at that stage. The debit and credit items prior to three years before the suit were left out of consideration. On that footing a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 276 with interest at nine per cent.