1. The only question raised in this appeal is one of limitation. Unless the account between the parties is an open, current and mutual account most of the claim is barred. The position is this. The defendant was in the employment of the plaintiff. A ledger account was kept in his house in which were debited against him certain sums he drew periodically in advance, credit being given to him periodically on account of the salary due to him. I do not think that this can be called a mutual account. It is no more than a debtor and creditor account. In Hirada Basappa v. Gadiga Mudappa 6 M. H. C. 142 it was held by Holloway, J., that in order that accounts might be mutual
there must be transactions on each side creating independent obligations on the other and not merely transactions which create obligations on the one side, those on the other being merely complete or partial discharges of such obligations.
2. In Phillips v. Phillips  9 Hare. 471 the expression mutual was defined as meaning not merely where one of two parties has received money and paid it on account of the other, but where each of two parties has received and paid on account of the other and what would be recoverable would be the balance of the two accounts. The question then is only as to the receipt on the one side and payments of the other. In this case, there never was a balance in favour of the defendant.
3. I am of opinion, as I have already said, that the account between the parties was not mutual. The claim is therefore barred except such part of it as relates to the period within three years of the suit. It is admitted that, for that period, the amount due is Rs. 75-14-0 (seventy-five rupees and fourteen annas only). There will be a decree for that amount. I think that this is a case in which each party should bear his costs throughout.