The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of written admissions, the need for evidence of fraud or error to reopen settlements, and the requirement of registration for a valid mortgage.

Curgenven, J.

1. These three appeals, arising out of two suits tried by Beasley, J., as he then was, may be disposed of together since they relate to the same set of transactions. Jaganntham Pillai and one Somasundaram Chetti (now dead) carried on a hardware and machinery business in partnership from 1913 to 1923. One of the two suits (O.S. No 358 of 1921) was brought by Jagannadham Pillai for dissolution of this partnership and for accounts. At the trial it was agreed that the partnership was no longer subsisting so that it became a suit for accounts only. The case for the defendants, who were the. sons of Somasundaram Chetti was that the accounts had already been settled between the partners and indeed on two occasions. In 1920 there was a settlement with effect to the end of December 1918, with the result that Jagannadham Pillai received Rs. 13,800 as his share of the profits. Again in 1923 there was. a second settlement up to the termination of the partnership; and, probably because post war conditions were not favourable to a business of this kind, a considerable loss had to be divided and Jagannadham Pillai made himself liable, by means, to which I will subsequently refer, for the share to which his partnership related. He now repudiates both these so called settlements of account on the ground that he was in fact no party to them and that they are in fraud of his interests. If it is to be held that they did amount to settlements, his further plea is that owing to certain errors they are not binding upon him.

2. These pleas are raised in the face of a number of written admissions accepting his liability. The partnership agreement was originally an oral one But on 11th June 1920, when Jagannadham Pillais share was reduced from l/4th to 1/5th the agreement Ex. A was executed. This contains a statement subscribed to by Jagannadham Pillai that accounts had been taken up to 31st December 1918 and that he had received the amount due to him. Again when, to provide for his ultimate liability he executed the promissory note Ex. E on 25th May 1923, he made a similar admission with regard to the profit due up to the end of 1918. Then as regards the second settlement, Ex. E itself is the most important piece of evidence of its acceptance by Jagannadham Pillai, and this document was followed by what purported to be a mortgage) by deposit of title-deeds; and the agreement to enter info this mortgage comprises another admission, and further such admissions are to be found in the stock books of the partnership. In all, as the plaintiff had to admit, he acknowledged a debt of (is. 62,000 to the defendants in five different documents. Yet ha has had the effrontery to state in evidence that be had no opportunities of looking into the accounts and that he signed these documents blindly trusting the honesty of Somasundaram Chetti. He can hardly pretend that he is a man without any business abilities or experience because for 20 years he was in charge of the hardware department of Messrs. Oakes & Co., drawing a salary of Rs. 100 a month and 10 per cent commission on sales. His evidence contains a number of prevarications regarding his acquaintance with the accounts, but the admission that he makes as regards his signing some of the rough accounts proves, what is indeed only in accordance with probabilities, that as manager he was responsible for maintaining them. How far he is prepared to go will be seen from his assertion that he understood the promissory note Ex. E to be something in the way of a security bond for losses which might subsequently he incurred in the business. There is no doubt in my mind that on each occasion the plaintiff was perfectly well aware of what he was signing and that he must have given his agreement after a verification of the accounts. An attempt has been made to cast doubt upon the truth of the second settlement by reason of some discrepancy in regard to dates. In the written statement 31st July 1920, is g