The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the settlement and its impact on the cause of action, in light of the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act.

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

1. The case is by no means free from difficulty. If the parties had been allowed to adduce all the evidence, the points arising for decision would have been more easily solved, but that has not been done.

2. I accept Mr. Venkata Subba Rows statement that the learned Judge heard evidence only on the question of limitation, and that the case was stopped after that. Mr. Marthandam Pillai said that he was not in a position to contradict the statement. The nature of the questions put to the solitary witness examined in the case, the state of the records and the judgment of the learned Judge support the statement made by the learned Vakil at the bar.

3. Now as to the facts. A firm known by the name of Salamangalam Murugappa Chetty. A. Venkataperumal Chetty & Co., carrying on business in Madras, acted as commission agents for the sale of the goods consigned by the defendants between September 1909 and May 1911. The Madras firm advanced money on the goods from time to time, for which they charged interest. They were also entitled to commission. The firm became practically insolvent about the beginning of 1911. By Exhibit A, the plaintiff in this case and four others were appointed trustees to collect the outstandings of the firm and to make a distribution in favour of the creditors. One Thayaramma sued the trustees for dissolution of partnership and other reliefs : C.S. No. 292 of 1911. A Receiver was appointed in the course of the suit to manage the affairs of the firm. The Receiver put up the out standings due to the firm to auction, and the present plaintiff with the permission, of the Court became the purchaser.

4. The sale was on the 9th of November 1912, and the conveyance by the Receiver was on the 2nd of January 1913. I have thus far traced the title of the plaintiff.

5. Before the firm made over its assets to trustees, there was an attempt at a settlement of accounts between the firm and the defendants. What actually happened has not been fully elicited. As a result of the negotiations, a promissory note was executed on the 12th of September 1911 (Exhibit D). It purports to proceed from both the defendants but is signed only by the 1st defendant. The firm sued the 1st defendant alone on the note in C.S. No. 12 of 1912. I shall have to refer to it more in detail later on. As a result of this statement, the firm withdrew the suit with liberty to sue again. This was on the 26th of November 1912 (Exhibit II). The present suit is against both the defendants on the original cause of action, ignoring the promissory note.

7. The 1st defendants case is that the settlement evidenced by the promissory note bars the suit. The written statement spells as if he pleaded payment. However, I accept the interpretation suggested that it only refers to the adjustment and not to any payment. He also pleads the bar of limitation. The 2nd defendant says that nothing is due, that the 1st defendant is not his partner and that the claim is barred by limitation.

8. Issues relating to the competency of the plaintiff to maintain the suit, to the partnership between the defendants, to limitation and to the settlement of the amount due were raised.

9. The learned Judges view apparently was that the original cause of action was not open to the plaintiff, because of the promissory note, and that as the suit on the note would be barred the plaintiff can have no remedy in this suit.

10. In this Court, in addition to arguments advanced to support the conclusions of the learned Judge, contentions were put forward on all the issues raised in the case with a view to support the Judgment.

11. I regret my inability to accept the view of the learned Judge. Considerable reliance was placed upon a note made by the learned Judge in the course of the hearing. The note is "Plaintiffs vakil admits the settlement mentioned in the 5th issue". The learned Vakil who conducted the case has stated explicitly before us that the admission related to the willingne