Judgement

Appeal from a judgment of the High Court (March 29, 1915), varying a judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Ganjam.

The material facts sufficiently appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

1920. April 23, 26. Dunne K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the appellant referred to the Indian

Limitation Act, 1908, s. 3.

Parikh for the respondents.

April 26. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD BUCKMASTER. Their Lordships think that this appeal can be dealt with in a very few

sentences.

Law. Rep. 47 Ind. App. 200 ( 1919- 1920)

Raja of Killikota V. C haitana Sahu 57

The respondents brought a suit against the appellant upon an account stated and the learned Subordinate Judge, before whom the case was heard, found that the account stated was a deliberate fabrication and fraud on the respondents part. It followed that they were compelled to rely entirely upon the items of claims contained in a general account against the appellant. On examination of that account the explanation why the stated and settled account had been fraudulently prepared became obvious. It was because each one of the items was barred by the Limitation Act, the result being that when once the settled account