1957 (9) TMI 95 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Suit barred by limitation based on unregistered chitty udampady.
2. Interpretation of Section 19(1) of the Travancore Limitation Act regarding acknowledgment of liability.
3. Application of Article 52 of the Travancore Limitation Act on account stated.
4. Analysis of the judgment in Shamlal v. Gulabchand regarding what constitutes an account stated.
5. Consideration of whether Ex. A-1 amounts to an account stated under Article 52.
6. Examination of the essence of an account stated as per Bishun Chand v. Girdhari Lal.
7. Impact of all items being barred by limitation on the account stated, citing Ganesh Prasad v. Rambati Bai and Tulsiram Shrikisan v. Zaboo Bhima.
8. Comparison of Section 26 of the Travancore Contract Act with Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act regarding agreements without consideration.
9. Understanding an account stated as an agreement and its relevance when the claim is entirely barred.
10. Evaluation of Explanation II to Section 26 of the Travancore Contract Act concerning the adequacy of consideration in agreements.
11. Dismissal of the appeal due to the barred claim and absence of consideration, with costs to be borne by respective parties.
12. Contention on Ex. A-1 not being in terms of money for an account stated, which was not further considered in the judgment.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a suit based on an unregistered chitty udampady, which was found barred by limitation.
2. The interpretation of Section 19(1) of the Travancore Limitation Act was crucial in determining the effect of an acknowledgment of liability on the limitation period.
3. The application of Article 52 of the Travancore Limitation Act was discussed concerning the concept of an account stated and its impact on the limitation period.
4. The judgment in Shamlal v. Gulabchand provided insight into what constitutes an account stated, emphasizing the necessity for specific details in the account.
5. The consideration of whether Ex. A-1 could be classified as an account stated under Article 52 was pivotal in the case analysis.
6. The essence of an account stated, as outlined in Bishun Chand v. Girdhari Lal, highlighted the mutual agreement on the amounts and the creation of a new cause of action.
7. The impact of all items being barred by limitation on the account stated was examined, citing relevant judgments for reference.
8. A comparison between Section 26 of the Travancore Contract Act and Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act was made regarding agreements without consideration.
9. The nature of an account stated as an agreement and its relevance when the claim is entirely barred was discussed in detail.
10. The evaluation of Explanation II to Section 26 of the Travancore Contract Act concerning the adequacy of consideration in agreements was a crucial aspect of the case.
11. The appeal was dismissed due to the barred claim and absence of consideration, with costs to be borne by respective parties as per the lower court's direction.
12. The contention on Ex. A-1 not being in terms of money for an account stated was raised but not further explored in the judgment, given the conclusion reached.