Skip to content


Chinnasami Naidu Vs. Venkatasami Naidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.719
AppellantChinnasami Naidu
RespondentVenkatasami Naidu
Cases ReferredSee Amuthu v. Muthayya
Excerpt:
limitation - suit on account settled--settlement not signed. - 1. the plaintiff sues upon a settlement of account. looking at exhibit b we can see no such settlement. it is not, however, signed. we are hot, therefore, prepared to hold that the plaintiff has three years from its date for the institution of the suit. see amuthu v. muthayya 16 m. 339. then it is contended that the account is mutual, open and current. the judge does not believe exhibit a to be a correct extract. we are not in a position to say that the judge is wrong in saying from the nature of the entries that it is not a mutual, open, and current account. the claim as to rs. 4-1-0 depends on the correctness of exhibit a which the judge denies. we must dismiss the second appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff sues upon a settlement of account. Looking at Exhibit B we can see no such settlement. It is not, however, signed. We are hot, therefore, prepared to hold that the plaintiff has three years from its date for the institution of the suit. See Amuthu v. Muthayya 16 M. 339. Then it is contended that the account is mutual, open and current. The Judge does not believe Exhibit A to be a correct extract. We are not in a position to say that the Judge is wrong in saying from the nature of the entries that it is not a mutual, open, and current account. The claim as to Rs. 4-1-0 depends on the correctness of Exhibit A which the Judge denies. We must dismiss the second appeal with costs.


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