JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, J. - This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for rendition of accounts against them on the allegation that Khub Chand defendant 1, for himself and as the managing member of the defendants' family was the agent of the plaintiff. According to the plaint the plaintiff's ancestors were residents of Shikarpur although they were carrying, on business at Haldwani and Chiter Mal plaintiff was a connexion by marriage of Khub Chand. About the year 1904 the defendant suggested to the plaintiff that he might, through him, start money-lending business and make investments in properties in the district of Bulandshahr, to which the plaintiff agreed. He sent about Rs. 20,000 to the defendant who obtained documents mostly in his own name except one for Rs. 10,000 which was taken jointly in the name of the plaintiff and his uncle, as well as the defendant Khub Chand. According to the plaintiff the defendant did not render account to him but put him off.

2. In the written statement the defendant denied the allegation that he ever became the agent of the plaintiff or even that he ever received any money belonging to the plaintiff. He suggested that the plaintiff or his uncle Basdeo personally carried on some business and obtained documents in their own favour directly. The defendant however admitted that he was a joint creditor so far as the bond for Rs. 10,000 was concerned. In the written statement, apart from the absolute denial of the agency and the receipt of any money belonging to the plaintiff, there was no specific plea that the suit was brought more than three years after the termination of the agency. Nor was. there any suggestion that more than three years before the suit accounts had been demanded and refused by the defendant. There was however a general plea that the claim was barred by time.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge has found in favour of the plaintiff both on the merits as well as on the question of limitation and has passed a preliminary decree in his favour. The defendants have accordingly appealed.

4. Although full details of the money said to have been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants were not given in the plaint five specific transactions were put forward at the trial as those in which the plaintiff's money was invested through the agency of the defendant. The plaintiff served certain interrogatories on the defendant before the documentary evidence filed by him was allowed to be, taken out of the sealed cover and shown to the defendants. The answers of the defendant Khub Chand are to be found at pp. 8 and 9 on the lines of the pelas taken by him in the written statement. They contain an absolute denial of any receipt of money belonging to the plaintiff and of any realization of any bond by him. There is a clear denial of the advance of any loan through the defendant to any person like Mahommad Ali Nawaz Khan Deputy Sahib, Pandit Pahlad Singh, Mian Talib Ali of Naurangabad or Mian Hatim Ali of Naurangabad. The defendant admitted that he had instituted a suit against Pahlad Singh to recover the amount due on a promissory note executed by him about six years ago but claimed that related to his own personal money. Contrary to the statement in the plaint he admitted that he had realized Rs. 1,200 due to the plaintiff in different sums under instructions from him and pleaded that this sum was paid to the plaintiff through Lachhman Das though no receipt was obtained for it. (His Lordship after dealing with several transactions and considering the evidence, proceeded). The defendant Khub Chand . did not produce any account books of his own and stated that he only kept a note-book or memorandum. Even such memorandum has not been produced. We are therefore satisfied that the plaintiff's case that money was sent to the defendant from time to time which was invested by him on his behalf is true and that the transactions in question are evidenced by the defendants' own letter dated 18th January 1908