KUPPUSAMY AIYAR (DEAD) Vs. ALVRPSVEERAPPA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from a suit instituted in forma pauperis by the appellant for the taking of accounts against the defendant, to whom he used to send agricultural produce on the understanding that he was to sell the produce and pay over the sale proceeds to the appellant after deducting whatever moneys the respondent advanced to the appellant. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit holding, upon the allegations in the plaint, that it was barred by limitation.

(2.) The agency, according to the statement in the plaint, began sometime in 1901 and there were no dealings after 1906. This is made clear from the different paragraphs of the plaint, for instance, paragraphs 5, 9 and 12. The last paragraph, i. e., No. 12 mentions that the cause of action for the suit arose from 1901 to 1906 on the dates on which the appellant executed the promissory notes. The promissory notes referred to therein were notes executed by the appellant for the moneys advanced to him. One of these has been printed and our attention has been drawn to it by the learned Pleader for the appellant. That note goes to show that the previous accounts were settled and as a result of that, the promissory note in question was executed.

(3.) It was first of all contended before us that this was a case of open, mutual and current account, but upon the facts stated in the plaint it is difficult to say that this is so. What happened was the plaintiff used to send his goods to the defendant and to borrow from time to time on the security of those goods and for the balance that became due after taking accounts, he used to execute promissory notes. That would strongly suggest that there was no account left to be settled between the parties after the date when the last promissory note was executed.