RAJMAL SHAMJI BHANSALI Vs. PATEL MANRUPJI RANCHHODJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the original plaintiff and the opponent is the original defendant No. 1. The plaintiff had filed a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge J. D. Tharad in Banaskantha District to recover a sum of Rs. 830.00 from the four defendants. It was the case of the plaintiff that defendants Nos. 2 3 and 4 who were the sons of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 himself constituted a joint and undivided Hindu family. Defendant No. 1 was the Karta and manager of that family. According to the plaintiff the first defendant purchased two sets of ivory bangles from the plaintiff on credit and the aggregate price of the two sets was Rs. 551.00. This purchase took place on October 15 1964 Subsequently defendant No. 1 sent his son defendant No. 4 with a chit to get one of the two sets exchanged and then at the request of defendant No. 1 the set was exchanged and it was agreed that additional amount of Rs. 132.00 should be paid by way of exchange price. The plaintiff duly debited this amount to the defendant No. 1 and inspite of repeated reminders and demands this amount was not paid. According to the plaintiff he had to incur some additional expenses by way of camel hire charges and the plaintiff also claimed interest and that is how the aggregate of Rs. 850.00 was made out. Defendant No. 1 it appears paid an amount of Rs. 20.00 and hence the plaintiff claimed Rs. 830.00 from defendant No. 1.

(2.) The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff had not been able to prove that defendant No. 1 had purchased the two sets from the plaintiff. He however came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs version regarding the exchange had been established and he therefore passed a decree accordingly. Under these circumstances the trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit only to the extent of Rs. 112.00. Against this judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge there was an appeal to the District Court and the learned District Judge Banaskantha at Palanpur came to the conclusion that the entire version given by the plaintiff in the plaint was false and that the trial Court was in error in passing the decree for Rs. 112.00. The learned District Judge therefore dismissed the appeal. He set aside the judgment and decree of trial Court and dismissed the plaintiffs suit in toto. The present Civil Revision Application has been filed against this judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. it may be pointed out that against the judgment and decree to the extent of Rs. 112.00. defendant No. 1 against whom the decree had been passed had he filed cross objections after the plaintiff filed appeal before the District Court.

(3.) Mr. Majmudar for the petitioner the original plaintiff has contended that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to give relief to defendant No. 1 as regards the sum of Rs. 112.00 for which the decree had been passed by the trial Court against defendant No. 1 when the first defendant had neither appealed nor cross objected to the trial Court decree in so far as it was against him.