Skip to content


Andhra Rice Mill and ors. Vs. Mothay Narasimha Rao - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935Mad982; 158Ind.Cas.406
AppellantAndhra Rice Mill and ors.
RespondentMothay Narasimha Rao
Cases ReferredVelu Pillai v. Ghosh Mahomed
Excerpt:
- .....till after the accounts were practically closed; it is again significant that after the two items in question, there was not a single debit entry made against the defendants. in those circumstances, which i regard as very material, i must hold in the words of the judgment in velu pillai v. ghosh mahomed (1894) 17 mad. 298 that the two sales by the defendants ' are casual merely and not such as would imply a regular course of reciprocal dealings.'2. the question whether the dealings with which a particular case is concerned can be described as mutual, open and current, must depend upon the general nature of the account and not upon some casual entries. i am quite aware that it is not the number of the entries alone that determines the question, for cases may be conceived where.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The question in this case is whether the suit dealings are mutual, open and current. The accounts handed to me show that there were sales of oil by the plaintiff, creating obligations on the defendants' part. Payments were made from time to time by the defendants in discharge of the amounts due by them : in, some cases empty barrels were returned. So far, there is nothing to suggest that the dealings were mutual; but Mr. Ramanarsu, the plaintiff's counsel, points to two items and the defendants admit that they represent sales made by them to the plaintiff. The question then is, from these items can an inference be drawn that there was a regular course of reciprocal dealings? I am afraid not. The dealings extended over several years and there was not a single item of sale by the defendants till after the accounts were practically closed; it is again significant that after the two items in question, there was not a single debit entry made against the defendants. In those circumstances, which I regard as very material, I must hold in the words of the judgment in Velu Pillai v. Ghosh Mahomed (1894) 17 Mad. 298 that the two sales by the defendants ' are casual merely and not such as would imply a regular course of reciprocal dealings.'

2. The question whether the dealings with which a particular case is concerned can be described as mutual, open and current, must depend upon the general nature of the account and not upon some casual entries. I am quite aware that it is not the number of the entries alone that determines the question, for cases may be conceived where though the items giving rise to reciprocal demands are very few, yet the account possesses the essential attribute of mutuality. On the facts taken as a whole, it seems to me that the test of mutuality is clearly wanting in the present case and I am therefore constrained to hold that the suit is barred by limitation. Although the defendants succeed, their defence does not redound to their credit and I must disallow them costs. My order therefore is that each party shall bear his costs throughout.


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