MANAPALI KRISHNAYYA Vs. KAZA SEETHARAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question argued in this second appeal is one of limitation. The suit is to recover a sum of Rs. 709-7-0 due in respect of dealings had with defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who carried on business under the name of Seetharamanjaneya Rice Mill. The claim would be admittedly barred by limitation but for an acknowledgment of liability contained in the letter, Ex. F, executed by defendant No. 1 on October 28, 1926. Defendant No. 2, who is the appellant in this second appeal, resists the claim on the ground that Ex. F is not binding on him on two grounds: (1) The letter was intended to be executed by both the defendants but it is only signed by defendant No. 1 and, therefore, inoperative as against him (defendant No. 2); (2) On the date of Ex. F there was a decree for dissolution of partnership made in O.S. No. 244 of 1923 and defendant No. 1 could no longer act for him.

(2.) The first contention can be easily disposed of. Though the document was intended to be executed by two persons, at the time of the execution, it was agreed that it would be enough if defendant No. 1 executed it as he was the Receiver appointed in the said suit and the letter was signed by him as Receiver. The view taken by the lower Court in this behalf is correct and I see no reason to differ from it.

(3.) To appreciate the second contention a few facts may be necessary. Original Suit No. 244 of 1923 was a suit for dissolution of partnership of the said Seetharamanjaneya Rice Mill and in that suit an application was made on September 5, 1923, for the appointment of a Receiver by defendant No. 2 who was the plaintiff in the said action. The petition ran thus: For the reasons set forth in the affidavit filed herewith, the plaintiff prays for the appointment of a Receiver for collecting the assets due to the suit rice mill from others and for payment of the debts due to others and do other acts.