Chatterji, J - (1.)This appeal arises out of a suit for accounts. The plaintiffs have a shop at Sariya in which, they say, their father during his lifetime appointed the defendant as manager on 24 October 1920. He was in charge of the entire business of the shop and was responsible for cash and accounts. He worked till 26 February 1931 when he was dismissed. During the whole period of his service he never explained accounts to the plaintiffs. On the date of his dismissal he is said to have executed a chitha in favour of the plaintiffs agreeing to render accounts. As he put off the matter the plaintiffs through their pleader served him with a notice on 30th March 1931 by registered post asking for accounts. In reply he raised various pleas but never rendered accounts. At the time of his dismissal he made over certain account books to the plaintiffs. On examination of these accounts it is said he was found to have misappropriated at least Rs. 5100; with these allegations the plaintiffs-brought the suit asking for accounts from, him from 24 October 1920 to 26 February 1931. The defendant contested the suit chiefly on the ground that he was not in sole charge of the shop, that he rendered accounts for the period, in question, that all the account books being with the plaintiffs, they could not sue for accouts without giving details of the claim, and that the suit was barred by limitation, as the defendant was dismissed on 15 January 1931, i.e. more than three years before the institution of the suit. The defendant also denied having executed any chitha on 26 February 1931. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the defence and dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs.
(2.)The suit was brought on 26 February 1934, that is to say, just on the point of expiry of three years from the date of dismissal as given by the plaintiffs. Along with the plaint a large number of account books ranging from the year 1975 Sambat to 1987-88 Sambat, a list of which has been mentioned in Schedule A in the plaint, were filed. The defendant's definite case is that all the account books were made over to the plaintiffs and that he explained the accounts. It is an admitted fact that the father of the plaintiffs used to go to the Sariya shop sometimes monthly and sometimes at an interval of two or three months and the object of such visits was to look after the shop. Plaintiff 1 who is P.W. 1 admitted in his evidence that the books of account for Sariya shop were explained each year by either Ghasilal or Raghunath or the defendant.
(3.)In view of these admitted facts the learned Subordinate Judge was quite right in accepting the defendant's version that the accounts used to be explained by the defendant every year. But so far as the accounts for the year 1986-87 Sambat are concerned, the year had not expired when the defendant was dismissed and therefore the occasion for explaining the accounts at the end of the year did not arise.