Sethuraman, J.-The defendant in O.S. N . 91 of 1970 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, is the appellant. The plaintiff is a rubber dealer in Kulasekharam. The defendant is the owner of a rubber estate called the Cross Field. Plantation at Kaliel. From the year 1963 the defendant was supplying sheet rubber as well as scrap rubber to the plaintiff from tints to time. The plaintff was also supplying estate stores and other materials. There were in addition cash transations between the parties. The last of the dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant was on 23rd July, i966. The defendant did not thereafter supply any rubber. The account of the defendant stood at a debit of, or overdrawn or that date by a sum of Rs. 46,505-67. The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of this sum along with interest at 12 per cent. per annum, after giving credit for a sum of Rs. 8,494. 20 being the amount due to the defendant’s father M. K. Kuriakose on account of the price of scrap rubber supplied by him to the plaintiff. This credit entry was made on 20th April, 1968. The present suit was for recovery of Rs. 58,660 including interest and future interest and costs.

2. The defendant in his written statement stated that how the amount of the opening balance of Rs. 8,306.05 was due to the plaintiff was not clear, as the plaintiff had not produced the accounts for the year 1963-64. The defendant, therefore, reserved his right to file a detailed written statement when the particulars for the said amount were furnished by the plaintiff but he did not do so even after those accounts were filed. According to the defendant the plaintiff had not accounted for the price of the rubber properly and the plaintiff was not justified in adjusting the amount due to Kuriakose in his account. The defendant denied liability to pay interest. There was also a plea that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation.

3. On the pleadings the following issues were framed for trial-

1. Was a sum of Rs. 8,306.05 due from the defendant to the plaintiff as on 31st December, 1965?

2. Has the defendant been paid the proper price for the rubber sold by him to the plaintiff?

3. Has not the entire quantity of rubber sold by the defendant to the plaintiff accounted for?

4. Was there a contract between the defendant and the plaintiff that the latter shall pay the price of rubber at the rate prevailing in the Cochin auction or Cochin market?

5. Was the store purchase dated 7th January, 1966 on cash or on credit?

6. Has the defendant received only one of the cash payments entered on 21st January, 1966 and 22nd January, 1966?

7. Are the entries dated 31st January, 1966 and 8th June, 1966, by transfer of accounts from M. K. Kuriakose authorised and valid?

8. Is the credit entry dated 20th April, 1968 by transfer of accounts from M. K. Kuriakose made on the authorisation of the defendant or whether it is a bogus entry only to save limitation?

9. Is the interest claimed excessive?

10. What is the amount, if any, due from the defendant to the plaintiff?

11. Reliefs and costs?

12. Whether the plaint claim or any portion thereof is barred by limitation?

4. The learned Subordinate Judge held or issue No. 1 that a sum of Rs. 8,306.05 was due to the plaintiff as on 31st December, 1965. On Issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4, he found that the plaintiff had credited in his account the entire quantity of rubber sold by the defendant to him and that there was no agreement between the parties for payment of the price at the rate prevailing in Cochin auction. He held on Issues Nos. 5 and 6 that the estate stores purchased by the defendant were only on credit and not for cash and that the defendant had received the amount of Rs. 1,500 each recorded in the books on 21st January, 1966 and 22nd January, 1966. On Issues Nos. 6, 7 and 8, 9, the credit for the amount due to M. K. Kuriakose given in the plaintiff’s books as against the defendant was considered to be proper and interest was also held

Click Here to Read the rest of this document