Rajagopalan, J.- The proprietor of the plaintiff firm described it as a firm of stock and share brokers. His place of business was Devakottah. In paragraph 4 of his written statement the defendant contended that the plaintiff was both a broker and a dealer in shares. The defendant did not challenge the correctness of the plaintiff’s description of the defendant as a dealer in shares. The defendant was also a resident of Devakottah. Both parties agreed that transactions between them in purchase and sale of shares commenced on 7th June, 1945. The plaintiff claimed that the transactions between himself and the defendant formed the basis of an open, mutual and current account between them. The plaintiff’s claim in the suit was for the amount due to him on an account stated to the defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff’s claim. The defendant appealed.

Though the appeal was against the decree as a whole, learned counsel for the appellant confined his arguments to four sets of transactions. He explained that the liability the plaintiff sought to enforce on the defendant under these four sets of transactions more than covered the amount decreed.

The genuineness of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document