Judgment : The appellant filed O.S.No.7 of 2005 against the respondents in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parchur, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,46,996/-. The amount is said to be balance due under a Khatha maintained by the appellant, regarding purchases made by the respondents, and the interest thereon. It was pleaded that the appellant is a trader in Pesticides and the respondents used to purchase goods from them, from time to time, on regular basis. It was also stated that any amount due, would carry interest at 24% per annum. The respondents are said to have purchased various items of pesticides under credit bills, during 1998-99, and that as on 03-02-1999, a sum of Rs.37,352/- remained unpaid. As against that, they are said to have paid a sum of Rs.500/- on 20-04-2000, and Rs.50/-, on 20-03-2002. It was alleged that in spite of repeated demands, the respondents did not pay the balance and an amount of Rs.1,46,996/-, became due by 18-03-2005. 2. The 2nd respondent, being the proprietor of the 1st respondent firm, filed a written-statement. He stated that the firm was closed six years before the date of filing of the suit, and that he is not doing any business at all. He pleaded that he had no acquaintance with the appellant or its Managing Director, and that never any khatha was maintained with them. He disputed the truth and legality of the bills and accounts said to have been maintained by the appellant. Other related pleas were also raised. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment dated 22-10-2007. 3. The appellant filed A.S.No.340 of 2007 in the Court of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. The appeal was dismissed on 06-04-2009. Hence this Second Appeal. 4. Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court did not take into account, the principles governing the sale of goods or maintenance of accounts. He contends that once the practice of maintenance of accounts is established by production of relevant documents, an inference has to be drawn as to the genuinity thereof. Learned counsel submits that unlike in the other type of transactions, the occasion for obtaining the signature of the person, as regards whom the khatha is maintained, does not arise in transactions of the running accounts. 5. Learned counsel submits that unlike in the other type of transactions, the occasion for obtaining the signature of the person, as regards whom the khatha is maintained, does not arise in transactions of the running accounts. 5. The appellant laid its claim against the respondents on the basis of the accounts maintained by it. The respondents flatly denied any transaction with the appellant. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for? 2. Whether the defendant authorized Guravaiah to take pesticides from the plaintiff’s shop on credit basis? 3. Whether the bills dated 10-12-1998, 23-3-2001 and 26-3-2002 are true and valid”? 6. On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-49 were filed. The 2nd respondent deposed as DW-1 and no documentary evidence was filed on his behalf. The suit was dismissed. In A.S.No.340 of 2007 filed by the appellant, the following issues were framed by the lower Appellate Court, for consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiff supplied pesticides to D1 on credit vouchers? 2. Whether the account of plaintiff is an open current mutual and running khata? 3. Whether the trial Judge was competent to compare the disputed signatures without the assistance of an expert? 4. Whether the claim of the plaintiff was barred by limitation? The appeal was ultimately dismissed. 7. The appellant rested its claim against the respondents on the accounts maintained by it. The accounts were in relation to the alleged supply of pesticides to the 1st respondent-proprietary concern and the amount due under it. Even according to the appellant, the accounts were finalized by 03-02-1999 and that an amount of Rs.37,352/- was said to be due. 8. It is not uncommon that the relationship between the traders and some of their customers is such that the consideration of each item of purchase is not paid immediately, and accounts are maintained in relation to such transactions. While in some cases, the amounts due are cleared once for all, and new transactions are undertaken, in other cases, remittances are made depending on convenience, and the amount due is carried forward. 9. Whatever be the nature of transaction, the authenticity or accuracy thereof must be acknowledged by the person, on whom the obligation to pay is placed. While in some cases, the amounts due are cleared once for all, and new transactions are undertaken, in other cases, remittances are made depending on convenience, and the amount due is carried forward. 9. Whatever be the nature of transaction, the authenticity or accuracy thereof must be acknowledged by the person, on whom the obligation to pay is placed. It is fundamental that as long as the accounts are finalized, up to a particular date, the signature of the person liable to pay the amount is taken, in token of his approval of the accuracy thereof. If no such signature is obtained, the statement becomes the one, prepared by a person, who claims it. No corresponding rights or obligations flow from such unilateral statements. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the statement of account, said to have been standardized up to 03-02-1999, did not contain the signatures of the respondents. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to base any claim upon it. 10. Assuming that the statements so prepared had any enforceability in law, the claim made upon it stood barred by limitation, since the suit was filed in the year 2005. Obviously to overcome it, the appellant pleaded two payments of Rs.500/- on 20-04-2000 and Rs.50/- on 23-03-2002, respectively. Here a different approach was adopted by the appellant, but, even this, it does not accord with law. Whenever an individual receives amount from another, it is the former, that would give the receipt to the latter. The payment can be to clear the whole, or part of the debt. The receipt would contain the signature of the person, who received it. Further, the receipt would be in the possession of the person, who paid the amount. In the instant case, the receipts for Rs.550/-are said to have been issued by the appellant itself. Such a practice is totally unknown to law. Added to that, the receipts contained the signature of a person, whom the 2nd respondent has totally disowned. Even the so-called receipts are not placed before this Court. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in GORDON WOODROFFE AND CO.(MADRAS) LTD., V. SHAIK M.A. MAJID AND CO., AIR 1967 SC 181 to apprise this Court of the principles governing the maintenance of accounts. Even the so-called receipts are not placed before this Court. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in GORDON WOODROFFE AND CO.(MADRAS) LTD., V. SHAIK M.A. MAJID AND CO., AIR 1967 SC 181 to apprise this Court of the principles governing the maintenance of accounts. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court is not at all applicable to the facts of this case. 12. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.