Skip to content


Bhogi Reddi Kumaraswami Vs. Maddekara Narayana Rao Agent of Byram Shah - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1924)46MLJ468
AppellantBhogi Reddi Kumaraswami
RespondentMaddekara Narayana Rao Agent of Byram Shah
Cases ReferredAndiappa Chetty v. Alasinga Naidu
Excerpt:
- .....viz., whether defendant's letter ex. d 1. is an acknowledgment saving the bar. it seems to me quite clear from the terms of that letter that the work as per the agreement to be done by defendant had not then been completed and that the accounts had therefore not been finally settled. this is supported by the finding of the district munsif that the work was not finished till august 1915. this was a case therefore where the final liability could not be fixed by final accounts until august, 1915. plaintiff's suit was within 3 years of that date.2. as remarked in andiappa chetty v. alasinga naidu ilr 36 m 68 in a suit for the balance due on taking accounts an admission that accounts must be taken and settled would be a pertinent acknowledgement. plaintiff no doubt sues for a definite sum.....
Judgment:

Wallace, J.

1. The only point argued in this appeal is the question of limitation viz., whether defendant's letter Ex. D 1. is an acknowledgment saving the bar. It seems to me quite clear from the terms of that letter that the work as per the agreement to be done by defendant had not then been completed and that the accounts had therefore not been finally settled. This is supported by the finding of the District Munsif that the work was not finished till August 1915. This was a case therefore where the final liability could not be fixed by final accounts until August, 1915. Plaintiff's suit was within 3 years of that date.

2. As remarked in Andiappa Chetty v. Alasinga Naidu ILR 36 M 68 in a suit for the balance due on taking accounts an admission that accounts must be taken and settled would be a pertinent acknowledgement. Plaintiff no doubt sues for a definite sum considered by him as due on his accounts but the suit was, in substance, one for accounts as both parties themselves confessed, when they agreed to have it settled by the railway accounts (see Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court).

3. I find no substance in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //