J S SOOD Vs. PREM LATA MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, as sole proprietor of M/s. Globe Films, has filed the preseat suit for recovery of Rs. 2,36,000 against the defendants, who are stated to be the partners of a firm which was producing a motion picture 'NADANIYAN'. The suit has been filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The plaintiff has alleged that there was a verbal agreement under which he agreed to finance the production of the aforesaid film. He has further alleged that in pursuance thereto he made various payments to the defendants from time to time for this purpose. It is specifically averred that though the whole finance for the production of this picture was given by the plaintiff there existed no writing between the parties to that effect. It is further stated that sometime in July, 1983, the plaintiff requested the defendants to go into the accounts and confirm the payments received by them so that the plaintiff could have an exact idea of his investments. This plea appears to be rather strange when the money was advanced by the plaintiff and there could be no question of defendants going into the accounts and confirming the payments received by them from the plaintiff. It is then stated that after great pursuation the defendants agreed to acknowledge only receipt of Rs. 2,00,000 though the plaintiff could trace out payment of Rs. 2,08.000 "from whatever little bank accounts he was having". The plaintiff has also stated that in fact the payments made by him were more than this amount of Rs. 2,08,000 as he also made payments by means of bearer cheques and cash as well. On the basis of the following writing of the defendants, the plaintiff has filed the present suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure: "J. S. Sood GLOBE FILM DELHI Regarding: NADANIYAN This is to certify that you have paid a sum of Rs. 2 LAKH in completion of picture Nadaniyan till date which will be repaid to you before release of the picture 'NANDANIYAN'.

(3.) This writing is stated to be in the handwriting of defendant No. 2. It is, however, on the letterhead of the plaintiff. From the signatures appended to this writing it can hardly be said that it is signed by defendant No. 2, although the plaintiff contends that it is so signed. There is no rate of interest mentioned in this writing but the plaintiff is claiming interest @ 24 per cent per annum which is stated to be the minimum in the film trade. The total interest as worked out comes to Rs. 36,000. Hence the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,36,000.