- (1.)This is a suit filed by a constituent against Ms broker. The plaintiff claims in the suit accounts for two vaidas, December 1938 and January 1989. His grievance is that although called upon from time to time to render the accounts, the defendant, his agent, has failed to render those accounts. The substantial defence on this plea is that the accounts with regard to the December 1938 and January 1939 vaidas were settled between the parties and the plaintiff is not entitled to the accounts. The facts which are really not in dispute are as follows.
(2.)The defendant submitted the ankda for the December 1938 settlement to the plaintiff on December 8, 1938. This ankda showed that a sum of Rs. J,204-1-0 was due by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff did not pay the full amount but paid a sum of Rs. 839-1-0 in respect of this vaida, and the defendant accepted this amount in full and final settlement of what was due by the plaintiff for the December vaida. It is necessary to refer to the entries made in respect of this payment. The plaintiff in his cash book has debited this sum for payment to his broker in respect of the December vahm. The defendant in his cash book has credited this sum and in his journal as a larger amount was due and the amount paid was less to the extent of Rs. 365 he has given credit to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 365 and debited that amount to the brokerage account. Therefore it is clear on the books of account both of the plaintiff and of the defendant that the sum of Rs. 839-1-0 was paid and accepted in full settlement of the December 1938 vaida. With regard to the January 1939 vaida, a sum of Rs. 376-4-0 was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant paid that amount, and that also is credited by the plaintiff in his cash book as having been received from his broker in respect of the January valan.
(3.)In respect of the February 1939 vaida, a large amount was due by the plaintiff to the defendant. The amount claimed by the defendant was Rs. 37,005. As the plaintiff failed to pay the amount, the defendant filed a summary suit in. this Court, being Suit No. 227 of 1939. That suit was confined to the operations of the plaintiff for the February 1939 vaida. A summons was taken out by the defendant for a decree on the summary suit, and in his affidavit in reply which was filed on June 12, 1939, the plaintiff stated that the, accounts for the December and January vaidas had not been settled or adjusted as alleged by the defendant in his plaint in Suit No. 227 of 1939. The defendant filed his affidavit in rejoinder and re-asserted that the accounts had been settled and adjusted for those two vaidas. The plaintiff then filed a written statement in that suit but did not counterclaim for accounts for those two vaidas. Ultimately a decree was passed in favour of the defendant in that suit on February 1, 1940. The plaintiff preferred an appeal from that decree, and that appeal was dismissed on September 30, 1940. On December 19, 1940, the plaintiff filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, and that petition was dismissed on March 31, 1941. On February 27, 1941, the plaintiff by his attorneys made a demand upon the defendant for the accounts of the December 1938 and January 1939 vaidas, and finally he filed his suit on December 2, 1941.
;