First Appeal No. 278 of 1920. Case: Narayan Laxman Adhikari Vs Chapsi Dosa. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 278 of 1920 |
| Judges | Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and Shah, J. |
| Issue | Commercial Law |
| Citation | 1921 (23) BomLR 1272 |
| Judgement Date | August 30, 1921 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
-
The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 5,407-11-7 as principal and Rs. 248-12-0 as interest from the first and second defendants. The first and second defendant and one Ramchandra, brother of the first defendant, wore a joint Hindu family carrying on business in groceries, and in the course of that business had dealings with the plaintiffs. There were various Khatas, five in all, representing the transactions between the parties. Before 1913 Ramchandra separated, but the business was carried on by the first and second defendants. In August 1913 the amounts to the debit and credit of the various five Khatas were totalled, credits on one side and debits on the other, and the second defendant signed both the debits and credits as correct. Thereafter the account continued, and this suit is brought within three years of the signatures placed by the second defendant in the plaintiffs' books on the 8th August 1913.
-
The first defendant is now dead and the second defendant disputes the plaintiffs' claim which was allowed by the Court below. The decree directs the second defendant personally and as representative of the deceased defendant No. 1, to pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 5,273-15-0 and proportionate costs With further interest at six per cent. The first question 1931 taken in appeal is a question of limitation It was argued that three of the Khatas, which were amalgamated in 1913, had not been operated upon since 1908, and, therefore, any acknowledgment of what was due by the defendants to the Macleod plaintiff's on these Khatas was barred by limitation. That is an ingenious but a dishonest defence, because it is clear that the business transactions between the parties continued after 1908, and were recorded in Khatas 4 and 5, and the total effect was that what was due to the plaintiffs was the balance on the five accounts, and it was not open to the defendants to say that the amounts appearing to be due by them on the first three Khatas were barred, while the amounts which were due to them from the plaintiffs on the later accounts were not barred. Obviously, however, many accounts...
To continue reading
Request your trial