Judgment :- This appeal suit is directed against the decree and judgment dated 28.2.1995 made in O.S.No.12 of 1994 by the court of District Judge, Sivaganga District. 2. Suit filed for rendition of true accounts relating to the firm 'S.VE.Selliah' at Singapore maintained by the defendant. The plaint averments are that the plaintiff has a money lending firm in Singapore under the name and style of 'S.VE.Selliah' at 49, Market Street, Singapore, which was started on 5.12.1951; that the plaintiff accommodated the defendant, who had not contributed money for his share, as a sharer in the said business, since the defendant had much experience in money lending business for which no deed of partnership was entered into except the book adjustment; that as agreed by the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant has been looking after the said business and submitted accounts to income-tax department and remitted amounts; that the licence for the said business has been granted; that as promised and undertaken by the defendant, he had not sent any account of the said business; that the defendant on 11.6.1986 visited India to attend his 2nd daughter's marriage and at that time, the plaintiff demanded the true accounts from the defendant for which he also promised to send the true accounts of the firm on or about January,1989; but the defendant never sent the accounts as promised by him; that the plaintiff tentatively valued his share to the tune of Rs.55,000/- and hence, the plaintiff prays to direct the defendant to render true accounts of the firm and to pay the plaintiff's share of amount as per accounts. 3. 3. In the written statement the defendant would submit that the partnership firm was started on 25.1.1952 by equal investment of plaintiff and defendant by which the firm was also named by using the two initials as 'Seyna-Vanayena Selliah' and it was registered according to the law of Singapore for which the accounts were properly maintained and assessed for income tax; that the plaintiff had not visited Singapore as promised but the defendant went to India on 1.9.1977 and settled the accounts; that in the meantime, the Government of Singapore took steps to demolish the building where the money lending firm was put up; that since the business was also closed, the matter was intimated on 23.11.1977 to the Singapore Registrar of Business as per Section 13(1) of Business Registration Act,1973, which matter is known to the plaintiff as the defendant was in India from 1977 to 1982 and he would pray to dismiss the suit with costs. 4. In consideration of the pleadings by parties having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and with no representation made on the part of the respondent, this court in appreciation of the materials made available on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for appellant is passing this judgment today. It is a suit filed by the appellant praying (a) to direct the defendant to render true accounts of the firm 'S.VE.Shelliah' at Singapore from the date of commencement to the date of decree;(b)directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff's share of amount as per accounts and © directing the defendant to pay costs of the suit. 5. It is a suit filed by the appellant praying (a) to direct the defendant to render true accounts of the firm 'S.VE.Shelliah' at Singapore from the date of commencement to the date of decree;(b)directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff's share of amount as per accounts and © directing the defendant to pay costs of the suit. 5. On the part of the plaintiff, he would plead that himself and the defendant started the firm 'S.Ve.Selliah' at Singapore on 5.12.1951 to do money lending business on oral agreement and there was only the book adjustment with no other details supplied to, as what was the investment made on the part of the plaintiff, eventhough it comes to say, the defendant did not attribute anything has to furnish, but would say that it was the defendant, who was looking after the business at Singapore doing all such things which shall require for a business of that nature, the plaintiff would also say that the business shall continue till the date of the filing of the suit; it was originally in the year 1991; he would further state that upto 1971 he was in the habit of paying visit to Singapore often and again verifying the accounts, but thereafter, for reasons unascertained, he was unable to go, but would come forward to say that the defendant promised to send true accounts relating to the business. 6. The further case of the plaintiff is that after 1971, the defendant had not sent any account and on 11.6.1986, when he visited India for conducting his daughter's marriage for which he invited the plaintiff also, the defendant is said to have promised to send the true accounts of the firm in or about January,1989, but failed to do so. Therefore, estimating the value of the share to the tune of Rs.55,000/-(5000 Singapore Dollars)and further undertaking to pay the court fee, if on rendering the accounts, it is found to be in excess than the said amount would seek the reliefs extracted supra. 7. Therefore, estimating the value of the share to the tune of Rs.55,000/-(5000 Singapore Dollars)and further undertaking to pay the court fee, if on rendering the accounts, it is found to be in excess than the said amount would seek the reliefs extracted supra. 7. On the other hand the defendant would though admit starting of the partnership firm, would deny that was on 5.12.1951 but only on 25.1.1952; he would further say that they both equally contributed and started the same; that the plaintiff's with malafide intention had filed the suit; that it was registered firm, according to the law of Singapore, the business names Ordinance,1940; that the accounts were properly maintained with the payment of income tax; that on account of heavy drain in flow of money, both parties have decided to close the firm in 1975 and the plaintiff having promised to pay visit to Singapore had not turned up, in spite of the defendant booking the plane ticket; that the closed business was intimated on 23.1.1977 to Singapore Registrar of Business as per Section 13(1) of Business Registration Act,1973; that all these facts were made known to the plaintiff from 1977 to 1982; that during his daughter's marriage held on 11.6.1986, there was no discussion regarding the partnership firm, since it had been closed as early as in the year 1977 to the full knowledge of the plaintiff; that for 14 years there had been no demand either for account or any other discussion regarding the closed business, but when the defendant demanded to return the 70 sovereigns of jewels, which was entrusted with the custody of the plaintiff, the plaintiff started filing the above vexatious suit on imaginary cause of action absolutely bereft of any truth attached to the same. On such allegations, the defendant would seek to dismiss the suit with costs. 8. On such allegations, the defendant would seek to dismiss the suit with costs. 8. A careful study held into the trial conducted by the trial court, this court is able to analyse that the court of District Judge had not only traced the facts and circumstances as pleaded by the parties, but also, having framed 5 main issues and one additional issue for determination of the whole suit and allowing parties to record their evidence on trial wherein on the part of the plaintiff, the plaintiff would examine himself as the sole witness P.W.1 for oral evidence besides marking 18 documents as Exs.A1 to A18, Ex.A1 being the stock register, Ex.A2 being the account register dated 13.5.1962, Ex.A3 being another account register dated 14.6.1962;, Ex.A4 being the stock register dated 14.5.1962, Ex.A5 being a letter dated 20.3.1968, Exs.A6 and A7 also being letters respectively dated 2.11.1968 and 24.11.1968 written from Singapore. Exs.A8, A9 and A10 all dated 5.12.1991 being the account registers, Ex.A11 dated 17.10.1962 being the letter, Exs.A12 to A14 also letters respectively dated 15.2.1956, 20.8.1955 and 8.10.1955, Ex.A15 dated 8.1.1959 being the stock book, Ex.A16 dated 15.12.1958 being the stock book, Ex.A17 dated 16.8.1969 and Ex.A18 dated 17.7.1981 being letters. 9. On the part of the defendant, no witness would be examined for oral evidence, but 5 documents would be marked as Exs.B1 to B5. Exs.B1 and B2 dated 25.1.1952 being the xerox copy of the registration certificate, Ex.B3 dated 23.11.1977 is the court notice issued under Form 'H'. Ex.B4 dated 1.9.1977 marriage invitation card and Ex.B5 dated 11.6.1986 yet another marriage invitation. 10. Exs.B1 and B2 dated 25.1.1952 being the xerox copy of the registration certificate, Ex.B3 dated 23.11.1977 is the court notice issued under Form 'H'. Ex.B4 dated 1.9.1977 marriage invitation card and Ex.B5 dated 11.6.1986 yet another marriage invitation. 10. The trial court having recorded these evidence and having had its own discussion, on the issues framed one by one, taking up the first issue for discussion primarily, which is whether the suit is maintainable in law, the trial court, after strenuous discussion of the facts and circumstances would ultimately arrive at conclusion that the court had jurisdiction to try the suit for which the court below had taken into consideration the judgments rendered by different upper forums of law, such as (i)ISMAILJI HAJI HALEEMBAI vs.ISMAIL ABDUL KHADER (XLV Bombay 1228), (ii)NOORTHIN vs.KOIRTHIN (AIR1933 Lahur 120) (iii)MORARJISOORJI vs.GIANT TRADING CORPORATION LIMITED (AIR 36, 1949) Katch V and the lower court would find in all the above judgments passed on similar set of facts and would decide that the said suit could be maintained rejecting the plea of the defendant that the suit could not be maintained and would ultimately decide in favour of the plaintiff stating that the lower court is having jurisdiction to entertain and conduct the suit. 11. Coming to the second issue whether the suit is barred by limitation, the lower court having its own discussion on this fact, would also consider some old judgments cited on the part of the plaintiff reported in (i) IBRAHIM vs.KADHIR IBRAHIM (1945(2)MLJ.484) (ii)ASHAR BIRGOWR vs. RAMPIYARI (AIR 1939 Allahabad 442) (iii)KUPCHAND vs. SITHARMAL (1931 (18) AIR Allahabad 372) (iv)THOMMAN THERASIA vs. BOTHAN CHACKO (AIR 1957 Kerala 155) and (v)CHANDRA PARVA vs.CHANDRA MATHAPARVA (1(13)MLJ 886) and would dismiss the arguments of the counsel that these judgments would suit to the facts of the case, saying that they have nothing to do with the case in hand and would also dismiss yet another judgment reported in AYYAKUTY vs.SIGAPPI ACHI (114 Indian cases 364) in the said process. However, the lower court remarking that there is absolutely no evidence for the plaintiff to have demanded the accounts of the partnership firm by 23.10.1988 and therefore, would arrive at the conclusion that it is a case which has been barred by limitation. However, the lower court remarking that there is absolutely no evidence for the plaintiff to have demanded the accounts of the partnership firm by 23.10.1988 and therefore, would arrive at the conclusion that it is a case which has been barred by limitation. Even for the other issue Nos.3 and 4 and the Additional Issue deciding them negatively the lower court would ultimately dismiss the suit without costs. The lower court in its endevour to find out the truth has not only gone into the facts and circumstances as pleaded by the parties, but also having allowed the parties to record their evidence both oral and documentary and having a lengthy discussion of its own on the evidence placed on record, would find that the case is one which is barred by limitation and would ultimately arrive at easy conclusion to hold the other issue Nos.3 to 5 against the plaintiff in spite of having held the first issue in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that the lower court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 12. When the case has been decided on point of limitation having not accepted the cause of action as it had been pleaded as on 27.10.1988, which according to the lower court no evidence in support of the same had been placed on record and therefore, accepting the case of the defendant and remarking that after 17 long years, the plaintiff on account of other enmities which arose on different reasons between them had filed the suit falsely in a highly belated manner and had dismissed the suit, but without costs. 13. Learned senior counsel through his arguments would only cite a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in ISWAR BHAI C. PATEL vs. HARIHAR BEHERA (AIR 1999 SC.1341) to the proposition of law held therein for the plea that money from bank account of plaintiff was given to the defendant No.I by defendant No.II, who was father of the plaintiff and who operated plaintiff's bank account on suggestion of defendant No.I having not been controverted by the said defendant, who did not enter into the box to deny such plea, and hence adverse inference could be drawn against him as contemplated by Section 114(G) of the Evidence act. In the above judgment, the Honourable Apex Court has held that when there is a pointed plea against the defendant to the effect that he was instrumental for suggesting the money of the plaintiff to be given, he should have adduced rebuttal evidence getting into the box and appearing as a witness, thus not withholding the best of evidence and hence only adverse inference could be drawn against such defendants. 14. Learned senior counsel would compare this judgment to that of the case in hand in which also the defendant has not got into the box, not ready to examine any evidence in his favour for adducing oral evidence, but only marked 5 documents as Exs.B1 to B5. However, things are entirely different so far as the case in hand is concerned, since the above case has been decided by the lower court, mainly on question of limitation. Moreover, the moment such adverse inference is drawn, the same does not go into the facts to decide the case. Therefore, this judgment is not going to give help the appellant's case in the above appeal. It is heavily against the appellant, plaintiff. 15. This court is in perfect agreement of the lower court in all respects having arrived at such conclusions in determining the issues and delivering the judgment, ultimately dismissing the suit, which are the only conclusions that could be arrived at in the circumstances of the suit. For the long delay after 1977, since the firm is said to have been closed till the date of filing of the suit in the year 1994, there is a long gap of 17 years during which period, there is absolutely no valid, oral or documentary evidence placed on record for proper consideration and therefore, it is only safe to conclude that the suit has been vexatiously filed, on the part of the plaintiff on previous enmity without proper and true cause of action, thus concurring the conclusions arrived at by the trial court. In result, (i)the above appeal suit fails and the same is dismissed. (ii)The judgment and decree dated 28.2.1995 made in O.S.No.12 of 1994 by the court of District Judge, Sivaganga is confirmed. (iii)In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.