KANHAIYA LAL SHARMA Vs. MAHANTABHAI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this regular second appeal, the judgment and decree of a learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 23rd March, 1966 affirming the decree of a learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Class dated 20th September, 1965 is impugned.

(2.) Shri Kanhaiya Lal Sharma, Smt. Ferozi Deviand Smt. Bhanwari Devi (appellants in this Court) instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration and consequential relief and for rendition of accounts and injunction against six defendants. The only issue on the merits which arose for trial was whether the plaintiffs had given up their share in the quota rights in suit as alleged in the written statement. The trial Court, in a fairly detailed judgment, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had given up their share in the quota rights in suit in consideration of the amount paid to the plaintiffs vide cheques Exhibits D. W. 3/1 to D. W. 3/3.

(3.) The matter was taken by the plaintiffs on appeal to the Court of the District Judge and a learned Additional District Judge again went into the matter and after considering the arguments addressed in his Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. In the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, it has been observed that only Kanhaiya Lal had come into the witness-box, but he did not say what amount had been invested by him towards the capital of the firm in question. The plaintiffs, according to the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, had laid their entire stress on the agreement dated 26th March, 1960 (Exhibit P. 1) which contemplated their enjoyment of one-fourth share in the quota rights and the import licences. The defendant's case was, to quote the language of the lower Appellate Court, that "they were blackmailed into executing that agreement by depriving them of the quota for two years and they are not bound by this agreement because it was subsequently cancelled." This agreement, according to the defendants, contemplated going into accounts once again, but it did not provide for payment of any amount to the plaintiffs beyond their contribution to the firm's capital and profits and further that they had received huge sums through cheques. After considering the respective statements of the parties, the lower Appellate Court felt impressed by the defendant's reply. After discussing the respective contentions of the parties, the lower Appellate Court expressed itself thus:-