M SANKARAM IYER Vs. THIRAVIYA NADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Subordinate Judge disbelieves the plea of discharge. Ha finds the two payments alleged by the plaintiff to be rue, but dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation as the plaintiff did not make a special appreciation towards the defendant s accounts. THE only transactions outstanding when the payments were made ware promissory note and the hypothecation. the note was the earlier of the two. If appropriation was generally towards sum due on both transactions, both be saved. See Soumia Narayana gar v. Alagirisawmy Iyengar 14 Ind. Cas. 580 ; (1912) M.W.N. 754 ; 11. T. 429 and gu Miya v. Heramba Chandra Chakra 8 Ind. Cas. 81 ; 13 C.L.J. 139. I set aside the decree of the lower Court and pass a decree for plaintiff for the amount claimed. THE respondent will pay the petitioner s costs in this and the lower Court.