LawCite Search | LawCite Markup Tool | Help | Feedback Law Cite

N*33] ' amount at a certain date. There is considerable Niyogi and Bose JJ. force in the contention advanced by the appel lant. The question is one of first impression and Maroti Raghoba and others--Appellants v. / is not covered by direct authority and is not Mahadeo Chindhu and others--Respondents. Letters Patent Appeal No. 9 of 1941, Decided on free from difficulty. The lower appellate Court 11-12-1945, from judgment of Gruer J. in S. A. No. 39 held that the order dated 28-9-1935 granting of 1938, D/- 17-3-1941. · time to the judgment-debtor for payment till (a) Evidence Act (1872), S. 32 (2) -- Entries in 1-12-1935 was an order under 0. 20, R. 11 (2), account books -- It must be proved that persons making them had personal knowledge of transac Civil P. C. as it was passed after issue of notice tions entered by them. . * to the decree-holders and was a subsequent Where entries in the account books made by persons order within S. 48 (l) (b), Civil P. C. and that who are dead are relied upon to charge a person with the decree-holders were entitled to a fresh period liability it is necessary to prove that the persons making the entries had personal knowledge of the transactions of 12 years from 1-12-1935, the date fixed for entered by them :     1

Cases Referring to this Case

Case Name	Citation(s)	Court	Jurisdiction	Date †	Full Text		Citation Index
Maroti Raghoba v Mahadeo Chindhu	[1945] AllINRprNag 140; [1946] ILR Nag 707	All India Reporter - Nagpur	India - Maharashtra	11 Dec 1945	AsianLII