The implied liability to pay interest under Section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act can be negated by the course of dealings between the parties under Section 62 of the Act.

RAMAPRASADA RAO, J. :- The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff, on the strength of dealings in cotton trade between himself and the defendant between December of 1961 and June of 1967, claimed the suit amount as per a statement of account, which consists of two parts, one a statement of account as reflected in their account books kept in the regular course of business and another account said to be interest account, which was arrived at after calculation by the plaintiff himself. On the basis of the abovesaid two accounts, the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 65,222-77 in all. In paragraph 5 of the plaint he pleaded thus:-

"Though some of the items are more than 3 years from the date of suit the subsequent receipts were appropriated towards satisfaction of such items. Further by a notice issued on behalf of defendants on 7-11-1968, through their counsel and signed by defendant also, the defendant has acknowledged his liability and also a payment of Rs. 60,000 made by him towards part of dues under deposit receipts dated 3-2-1966 aggregating for Rs. 60,000 issued by and through Vijayakumar Cotton Press to plaintiff. Beside defendants had made part payment towards the same in December 1965 which are admitted and acknowledged by him. Hence the suit claim is in time. The aforesaid letter of 7-11-1968 will be filed at the time of hearing."

2. In the written statement the defendant denied that there was any particular usage or custom to pay interest either compound or simple over all the transactions that had taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant and that he never paid or claimed interest till the date of the suit on the mutual dealings they had. He would, in particular, refer to the copy of the accounts given by the plaintiff himself as reflected in his account book and would point out that no interest has been claimed in such accounts as well. The defendant denied that he owed a sum of Rs. 65,222-77. He, however, claimed that he deposited a sum of Rupees 20,000 with the plaintiff and he reserved his right to take separate steps to recover the amount. The question as to whether the deposit of the said amount with the plaintiff is true or not does not arise for consideration in the instant case. The defendant also pleaded that on 15-12-1965 and 17-12-1965, he paid sums of Rs. 300 and Rs. 500 to the plaintiff's agent and that he had also paid Rs. 300 on 30-11-1966. The plaintiff in his reply statement would deny the above three payments and would sustain his pleadings otherwise. The following issues were framed-

1. Whether the payments alleged in the written statement are true?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled? The learned trial Judge found that the payments alleged by the defendant in the written statement are not true. On the question whether the suit is barred by limitation, he was invited to render his opinion as to whether the account in question as reflected in the plaintiff's books of account could be treated as a mutual, open and current account. On this the learned Judge held that it was not and, therefore, he felt that it was unnecessary to go into the question as to whether the suit is barred or not under Article 14 of the Limitation Act. But by a closer scrutiny of the dealing and the payments respectively made by the parties, he came to the conclusion that the suit is not barred by limitation, as the defendant has paid well within the period of 3 years from the date of the suit an amount towards the suit debt and, therefore, the suit is saved by Section 19 of the Limitation Act. On issue 2, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, the learned trial Judge, on a curious reasoning, but after holding that the interest claimed by the plaintiff is exhorbitant, and is also clearly untenable and unjust, found a case for the plaintiff on a memo of calculation filed by him at the time of the argument