SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1940 Supreme(Mad) 120

WADSWORTH
Kanthasami Reddiar – Appellant
Versus
Pethusami Reddiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Wadsworth, J.

1. The petitioner was the defendant in a Small Cause suit for a sum of Rs. 232-2-2 due on account of dealings had by defendant with plaintiff from 6th March, 1933, to 1st March, 1934. The plaint was certainly based on a settlement of account on 1st March, 1934. The defendant raised pleas of discharge and also alleged that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court found against the pleas of discharge, there being no oral evidence adduced for the defendant. That decision of fact cannot be canvassed here.

2. The learned District Munsif also held that the suit was in time having regard to Article 64 of the Limitation Act. Now, the actual page of the account bearing this alleged settlement entry is proved to be all in the handwriting of the defendant who was employed by the plaintiff. The heading shows that it is the account of Kandasami Reddiar the defendant in the plaintiffs cotton shop. That also was in the handwriting of the defendant. The first entry in that page is dated 6th March, 1933, and the account closes with a small credit for cotton supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff on 1st March, 1934. Then the credit and debit entries are totalled in


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top