The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of allowing amendments to the plaint in cases where the original debt was never disputed and the defendants had no possible defense to that claim.

1. One Visvanadha Mudaliar, now deceased, a dealer in tobacco and the 1st defendant who is also doing business in tobacco purchased goods from him and eventually on account of such dealings and of a promissory note for Rs. 2450 on the 20th September, 1928 there was a sum of Rs. 6323-13-10 owing to Visvanadha Mudaliar on a balance of accounts. According to the account books of Visvanadha Mudaliar there was on the 20th September 1928 a settlement of accounts and a promissory note for the before-mentioned amount was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of Visvanadha Mudaliar payable on demand. It is necessary to mention also that the 2nd and 3rd defendants were trustees appointed by Visvanadha Mudaliar under a deed of trust dated 23rd August, 1928, under which Visvanadha Mudaliar himself and the 2nd and 3rd defendants were to be trustees of this business for the purpose of realising the assets and outstanding of it. After this deed of trust the 2nd and 3rd defendants enterted into possession of Visvanadha Mudaliars estate and amongst the assets there was the debt due by the 1st defendant to Visvanatha Mudaliar of Rs. 2450 on the promissory note and certain sums were also due amounting to Rs. 3923-13-10. The 1st defendant paid to the trustees small sums of Rule 50 Rs. 30 and Rs. 20 and giving credit for those amounts the balance of Rs. 6323-13-10 became the amount due on the 20th September, 1928, as is shown in Visvanadha Mudaliars account-book. After the execution of the promissory note the first defendant continued to pay towards the amount due by him instalments of Rs. 10. These payments are credited in Visvanadha Mudaliars account-book and although some of the payments were of Rs. 20 instead of Rs. 10 and some were not made weekly in the majority of cases weekly payments were made. The last instalment paid, according to the account-book, is dated 29th June, 1929. These instalments amounted in the aggregate to Rs. 340 leaving therefore a balance due by the 1st defendant to Visvanadha Mudaliar of Rs. 5983-13-10 on the 29th June, 1929. On the 3rd April, 1929 an insolvency petition was presented against Visvanadha Mudaliar and on it he was adjudicated an insolvent on the 22nd July, 1929. Thereafter his estate vested in the Official Assignee who on the 14th May, 1932 filed the suit under appeal claiming the sum of Rs. 5983-13-10 the balance due from the 1st defendant to the insolvent.

2. At the trial the 1st defendant admitted the execution of the promissory note and pleaded that he had discharged the promissory note by payment of the amount due to Visvanadha Mudaliar shortly after the execution of the promissory note. Thus there was no denial of the debt but a plea that it had been fully discharged. He also pleaded that the suit on the promissory note was barred by limitation; and taking the date of it, the suit on the promissory note clearly was barred. But in order to save limitation the plaintiff in his plaint set up an arrangement between Visvanadha Mudaliar and the 1st defendant whereby the promissory note amount was to be repaid by weekly payments and that the note was only to be enforced if there was -a default in such payments and that such payments had been made up to June 1929 and he also pleaded that a letter written by the 1st defendants lawyer dated the 18th February, 1931 asking to be allowed to look into the accounts amounted to an acknowledgment of the claim by the 1st defendant, a plea which is obviously unsustainable. The plaintiff also pleaded that he was entitled to exclude the period between January, 1931 during which he was kept out of possession of the promissory note by the 1st defendant, that this was done fraudulently and that as a result for nearly ten months he was unable to file the suit. There is also a claim for negligence or breach of trust against the 2nd and 3rd defendants trustees, another claim which is clearly unsustainable.

3. The learned trial Judge felt that he had no alternative bu