Judgment :- Krishnamoorthy, J. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit on accounts. According to the averments in the plaint, plaintiff is conducting a trade in the name and style of Sbajahan Timber Depot. The defendant used to receive advance amounts for the purpose of supplying timber and in the same transaction under the accounts a sum of Rs. 18,380.02 is due from the defendant as on 31-3-1971. The plaintiff is maintaining true and proper accounts for the dealings and inspita of repeated demands the defendant has not paid the amount. The plaintiff also relied on certain acknowledgements made by the defendant in his letters dated 1-5-1971,16-1-1969, 23-5-1968 and 27-1-1969 to save limitation and filed the suit for recovery of the amount with interest. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit is barred by limitation, that from 27-4-1968 onwards the defendant was acting as the power bolder of the plaintiff and that the other dealings were put an end to in 1967 itself. He further contended that there was no payment of Rs. 2250/- on 9-2-1971 as shown in the accounts, that the letters relied on for the purpose of proving an acknowledgement are not sufficient to save the period of limitation and that the suit is liable to be dismissed. 2. Originally, the suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The plaintiff took up the matter before this Court in A. S. No. 120/76. By judgment dated 18-2-1980, a Division Bench of this Court remanded the case to the trial court for considering the question whether the account between the parties was mutual open and current and whether the entry dated 9-2-1971 of an amount of Rs. 2250/-was genuine. 3. After remand, the parties adduced further evidence in the matter and the lower court came to the conclusion that the account between the parties is mutual, open and current that the entry dated 9-2-1971 is genuine and that an amount of Rs. 2250/-was paid to the defendant on that day. In view of the above finding the lower court passed a decree allowing the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 16,760.94 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit with proportionate costs. The defendant has come up in appeal against the above decree. 2250/-was paid to the defendant on that day. In view of the above finding the lower court passed a decree allowing the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 16,760.94 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit with proportionate costs. The defendant has come up in appeal against the above decree. 4 It will be relevant to note at this stage that if the account between the parties is for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties the Article applicable is Article 1 of the Limitation Act of 1963 and the time from which the period begins to run under the third column is the close of the year it) which the last item admitted or proved is entered in the account. The corresponding Article in the 1908 Act was Article 85. 5. In this Court the counsel for the defendant argued that the finding by the lower court on the two questions directed to be decided by this Court were not correctly decided by that court and he challenges both the findings. So the points for determination in this appeal are (1) whether the accounts between the plaintiff and defendant were mutual, open and current and (2) whether the entry in the account books dated 9-2-1971 for the payment of Rs. 2250/- is genuine. It is an admitted case between the parties that if the findings on these two points are in favour of the plaintiff, the suit is within time. The counsel for the appellants contended that the account is not a mutual open and current account, that the account will show that there was no reciprocal demand and that the payments made were only in discharge of the existing obligation of the parties, whereas the counsel for the respondent contended that in the circumstances of the case and from the account it is clear that it is a mutual, open and current account. The transaction between the parties, as can be seen from the evidence is that the plaintiff used to advance money to the defendant for supply of timber to the plaintiff's depot at Palghat. He will sell the timber and out of the sale proceeds the plaintiff is entitled to 10 per cent commission and the balance will be credited to the defendant's account. He will sell the timber and out of the sale proceeds the plaintiff is entitled to 10 per cent commission and the balance will be credited to the defendant's account. There is no sale of the timber to the plaintiff and it remains the property of the defendant. The plaintiff acts as an agent for selling timber and be is entitled to only a commission of 10 per cent. The counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of this Court by a learned Single Judge in Purushothan Ranchoddas Salt v. Ramaswami Iyer (1961 KLJ.1377) to contend for the position that the account in a transaction of the nature with which we are concerned is mutual„ open and current. In the above case the plaintiff bad advanced various amounts to the 1st defendant and the latter supplied goods to the former for sale on commission. The plaintiff sold them and debited the proceeds against the advances made taking the commission for himself. After considering the various decisions on the question, this Court held: In the present case, the goods were not sold to the plaintiff in discharge of the defendant's liability, bat were delivered for the purpose of sale by the plaintiff, to enable him to earn his 'commission debiting the balance of the sale proceeds against the amount payable by the defendant. The plaintiff's counsel also relied on M/S. Ganesh Prasad Bhurelal v. M/S. Dullchand Girdharilal (AIR 1961 Madhya Pradesh 99) for contending that the accrual of the commission due to the plaintiff envisaged an independent account against the defendant. but 1 am of the view, that this case is fully covered by the decision of Rankin C. J. Here also, as in the other case, the plaintiff's liability to account to the defendant for the proceeds of the goods sold, must be held to be an independent obligation, and applying the above test it follows, that the account sued on is a mutual account within the meaning of Article 85 of the Indian Limitation Act " The principles applicable in deciding the question as to whether an account is mutual, open and current are correctly laid down in the above decision. The facts in the above case are identical with the present case. There was no sale of timber to the plaintiff. The facts in the above case are identical with the present case. There was no sale of timber to the plaintiff. The timber was being supplied only for the purposes of sale by the plaintiff enabling him to earn a commission of 10 per cent. The plaintiff's liability to account for the profits of the timber entrusted is an independent obligation, different from the defendant's obligation to return the money advanced. Following the principles laid down in the above decision we hold that the account in the present case is a mutual, open and current account. 6. Regarding the (second question as to whether the entry for Rs. 2250/-on 9-2-1971 is genuine or not, the contention of the defendant were twofold, namely that it is not a genuine entry and that be has not received any amount and that it was subsequently entered for the purpose of this suit. Secondly, he contended that even if there was a payment on 9-2-19-71, that was for a different transaction and that it has nothing to do with the original transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant in advancing the money and supplying timber. Ext. A9 is the Day Book of the plaintiff and Ext. A9(a) is the entry regarding the payment of Rs. 2250/-to the defendant on 9-2-1971. Ext. A5 is the ledger for the corresponding period and Ext. A5(a) is the entry at page 53 regarding the payment of this amount to the defendant. Pw,1, the plaintiff, has given evidence regarding the payment of the amount on that day and has proved the account books, Pw.2, the Accountant, has also sworn that he witnessed the actual payment of Rs. 2250/-by the plaintiff to the defendant on 9-2-1971 and he further proved Ext. A5(a) and Ext. A9(a). Pw. 2 was a full-time Accountant at that time in the plaintiff's concern and Exts. A9(a) and A5(a) are in his own handwriting. We perused the entire account books and we also feel that the above account books were kept in the regular course of business and that there is nothing suspicious about the maintenance of the account books. We have gone through the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and we are satisfied that the plaintiff has proved that the accounts were regularly and properly kept in the usual course of business and that an amount of Rs. We have gone through the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and we are satisfied that the plaintiff has proved that the accounts were regularly and properly kept in the usual course of business and that an amount of Rs. 2250/-was paid to the defendant on that day. The learned connsel for the appellants contended that these entries Exts. A5(a) and A9(a) are inserted subsequently in the account book in order to save limitation and that they are not genuine entries. In this connection it is pertinent to note that the account books were produced along with the suit and the plaintiff had not relied on the entry on 9-2-1971 for saving the limitation in the paint. This entry became significant only by the remand order wherein the genuineness was directed to be considered, In these circumstances., it is difficult to accept the case of the defendant that the entry is subsequently inserted in order to save limitation. 7. In view of the above evidence in the case we accept the finding of the lower court that the entry on 9-2-197! is genuine. Status Approve Pending 8. Counsel for the appellants contended that even if toe entry dated 9-2-1971 is genuine, that was for an altogether different transaction and that it has nothing to do with the original transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant in advancing the money and supplying the timber. Counsel relied on the entry Ext. A9(a) which is in the following terms:? According to counsel, the above entry itself makes it clear that it is an independent transaction unconnected with the timber trade and that entry cannot be relied on for the purpose of finding that it is a mutual, open and current account. The counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that the entry will show that there was an advance made by the plaintiff on that day and that the mere fact that the purpose for which the advance was made to the defendant was also shown in the account will not militate against the case of the account being mutual, open and current. We feel that the contentions of the respondent-plaintiff have to be accepted in this regard. As mentioned earlier, the dealings between the parties were that the plaintiff used to make advances and the defendant used to supply timber to the plaintiff for being gold by him for earning a Commission. We feel that the contentions of the respondent-plaintiff have to be accepted in this regard. As mentioned earlier, the dealings between the parties were that the plaintiff used to make advances and the defendant used to supply timber to the plaintiff for being gold by him for earning a Commission. The entry will clearly show that as advance was made to the defendant on 9-2-1971 and the mere fact that the purpose of the advance was also shown in the account will not in any way affect the nature of the account. It is to be stated that in order that an account may become mutual, open and current, there must be independent transactions between the parties creating mutual obligations. The leading case on the subject is Tea Financing Syndicate v. Chandra Kamal (AIR 1931 Calcutta 359) which bas been subsequently approved by the Supreme Court also in Hindustan Forest Co. v. Lal Chand (AIR 1959 SC 1349) Rankin C.J. laid down the test to be applied for deciding the question in the following words: "There can, I think, be an doubt that the requirement of reciprocal demands involves, as all the Indian cases have decided following Halloway A.C.J, transactions on each side creating independent obligations on the other and not merely transactions which create obligations on one side, those on the other being merely complete or partial discharges of such obligations. It is further clear that goods as well as money may be sent by way of payment. We have therefore to see whether under the deed the tea, sent by the defendant to the plaintiff for sale, was sent merely by way of discharge of the defendant's debt or whether it was sent in the course of dealings designed to create a credit to the defendant as the owner of the tea sold, which credit when brought into the account would operate by way of set-off to reduce the defendant's liability," It is clear from the above decision that the requirement of reciprocal demands involves transactions on each side creating independent obligations on the other and not merely transactions which create obligations on one side those on the other being merely complete or partial discharge of such obligations. ib order that an account may be mutual, open and current„ transactions must be independent, creating independent obligations, and even if the entry dated 9-2-1971 is an independent transaction unconnected with the timber trade, that will be a circumstance to show that the account between the parties was mutual, open and current. 9. In view of the above, we hold that the account in question is a mutual, open and current account and that the entry dated 9-2-1971 is genuine. There is no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the same, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.