9911796707
TMI Blog1953 (3) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was further pleaded that no suit could be based merely on an acknowledgment of the debt. In paragraph 4 of the written statement it was alleged that the plaintiff No. 2 Dipchand having threatened to bring a suit against defendants I and 2 whose financial position was bad and having represented that plaintiff No. 1 Badkulal would be angry and abuse plaintiff No. 2, and having assured on oath by placing his hand on a deity in a temple that no suit shall be brought, and that amount of interest would be reduced asked defendants 1 and 2 to sign the khata, who signed the same without going through the accounts, on the faith of these statements made by Dipchand and that the defendants were not bound by these signatures. In paragraph 9 of the written statement it was alleged that in fact ₹ 15,000 or 16,000 as principal sum were due to plaintiffs from defendants but the suit had been filed for a much larger sum than due. Issue I framed by the district judge was in these terms : " Did the defendants Hiralal and Bhaiyala I sign on Bhadon Sudi 11 Samvat 2006 in the capacity of manager and head of the family, on the khata of, the plaintiffs after understanding the debit and cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto his accounts and ₹ 10,000 to ₹ 15,000 as principal and interest were due but he could not say what was the correct amount. When asked whether on the date of signing the acknowledgment he looked into the books to see what amount was due from him, his answer was in the negative. He further said that even after receiving notice he did not look into his own accounts to check as to what the correct balance was. A leading question was put to him Whether on Bhadon Sudi 11 Samvat 2006 there Was an entry of ₹ 34,000 in the defendants' khata as being the balance due from them to the plaintiffs. The answer was again evasive. He said " I could not say whether there was any such entry in his books." In these circumstances there was no justification for throwing out the plaintiffs' suit on the ground that the accounts were not explained to the defendants by the plaintiffs. The defendants had written the accounts in their own books from which the true balance could be ascertained. An inference from the statement of Hiralal can easily be raised that the balance entry of ₹ 34,000 also existed in his own books. Mr. Bindra tried to get out of this situation by u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... witness box supported the plaintiffs' case as laid in the plaint. He deposed that " This accounting was done by my muneem Puranlal and Ram Prasad, muneem of Hiralal............ Muneems explained and Hiralal signed after understanding it." In cross-examination he said that muneems were checking the accounts and when both the muneems said that so much was the balance, Hiralal then signed and that Hiralal and Bhaiyalal themselves did not check any account. The learned district judge and Mr. Bindra criticized the evidence of this witness and it was urged that he had made false and highly improbable statements with regard to the manner and circumstances in which the entry was signed. The discrepancies in the statement relate to matters of no consequence. In our opinion, his evidence along with the entry was sufficient to hold the plaintiffs' case proved when the best evidence of their own books to disprove the plaintiffs' case had been withheld by the defendants. No satisfactory explanation had been given for the non-production of the defendants' books, and the evidence given by Hiralal does not do much credit to him. Mr. Bindra contended that it should have been held that Bha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... temple " I shall not do anything unfair in my lifetime." In cross-examination he admitted that the words " signed Bhurey Naik Raghunandan Prasad Bakalam Hira Lal ", and the words " after adjusting the accounts ₹ 34,000 found correctly payable signed Hiralal " were written by Hiralal himself. It was further elicited in cross-examination that the witness had forged a receipt and for forging that receipt he was sentenced to one year's imprisonment in a criminal case started by Badkulal, plaintiffs This evidence therefore is not of much consequence in this case. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the district judge not only approached the decision of the case from an erroneous point of view but he also incorrectly appreciated the material on the record. The learned Judicial Commissioner was therefore perfectly justified in reversing his decision and. in holding that on 3rd September, 1949, there was an adjustment of accounts actually done by the muneems and accepted by the principals and the story of coercion and misrepresentation was false. Mr. Bindra next urged that the plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed because it could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
