Maharajan, J.- The defendant appeals. The suit out of which the appeal arises was laid by Chinnikrishnan Chettiar, the plaintiff, against the appellant Ethirajulu Naidu for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,850 allegedly due on an account stated by the plaintiff and signed by the defendant on 30th May, 1964. In the plaint it Was alleged that the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 7,000 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12 per cent, per annum thereon. According to the plaint, on 30th May, 1964 the, plaintiff demanded from the defendant the repayment of Rs. 8,330 representing Rs. 7,000 on account of principal and Rs. 1,330, on account of interest. On the date of demand (30th May, 1964) the defendant is alleged to have paid a sum of Rs. 500 towards interest and demanded an account, whereupon an account stated was prepared then and there by the plaintiff. The defendant, after verifying the same put his signature to it on the same day (30th May, 1,964). It was further alleged in the plaint that on 30th March, 1965 the defendant paid a further sum of Rs. 500 towards interest, but failed and neglected to pay the balance. Hence the suit.

2. The defendant in his answer denied that he ever borrowed any amount at any time from the plaintiff. He also denied specifically the alleged borrowing of a sum of Rs. 7,000, the demand by the plaintiff for the repayment on 30th May, 1964, the alleged payment by him of a sum of Rs. 500 towards interest on that date, the preparation by the plaintiff of the account stated and the alleged acknowledgment by the defendant of the account stated by putting his signature thereto. The defendant also denied that on 30th March, 1965 he paid a sum of Rs. 500 towards the alleged dues. The case of the defendant was that he,as a tin can manufacturer, used to receive supply of old tin sheets and new tin sheets from the plaintiff and would manufacture out of that material snuff boxes and supply the same in different sizes to the plaintiff, who is a dealer in snuff. In the course of the dealings, the plaintiff used to take the signatures of the defendant in a notebook as a token of his having received the raw materials. The defendant is an illiterate person, who had learnt only to sign his name in Tamil and English for the purpose of Bank transactions in the course of his business. There were occasions when the defendant signed his name in the plaintiff’s note book, on the plaintiff telling him that he would later fill the space above the defendant’s signature with the terms of the agreement as to the rate of the labour charges for manufacture of tin boxes. The defendant also used to sign his name in a chittai whenever labour charges were paid to him by the plaintiff. Misunderstandings broke out between the plaintiff and the defendant in April, 1967 with reference to the labour charges. According to the defendant, the plaintiff must have made use of the signatures of the defendant in the plaintiff’s note-book acknowledging receipt of raw materials or receipt of labour charges for the purpose of cooking up the account on foot of which this suit has been filed.

3. The Fifth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, before whom the suit was filed, framed the following issues:

1. Whether the defendant borrowed Us. 7,000 from the plaintiff?

2. Whether the defendant is not liable for the suit claim?

3. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

4. Upon a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court answered all the issues against the defendant and granted a decree as prayed for with costs. It is against this judgment, the defendant has preferred this claim.

5. In the appeal grounds, it is pleaded inter alia, that the plaintiff’s Claim is barred by limitation because on the plaintiff’s own showing, the loan is alleged to have been advanced in 1959 and there was no payment made in writing by the appellant towards the said loan upto 1964 and in the absenc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document