VADILAL MALUKCHAND Vs. UGARCHAND PITAMBARDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision application arising out of Small Cause Suit No. 2923 of 1957 filed in the Court of the Additional Judge Small Causes Ahmedabad by the opponent in respect of a money claim arising out of a document executed at Nakhatrana a village in Kutch. The suit was against two persons namely defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The document was executed by defendant No. 2 who was then trading in the name of his minor son defendant No. 1. The learned Small Causes Court Judge held that the Ahmedabad Court had jurisdiction because the creditor was residing at Ahmedabad and it was the duty of the debtors to seek the creditor. As regards defendant No. 1 he held that defendant No. 1 was liable only to the extent of his share in the joint family property and he was not personally liable because the document was executed by defendant No. 2 as a person trading in the name of his minor son. As regards defendant No. 2 he made him liable to the full extent of Rs. 1099.00.

(2.) In revision only two points are urged. It is first urged that the Ahmedabad Court had no jurisdiction because the document amounts to a promissory note and was made at Nakhatrana in Kutch. It is secondly urged that the Court was wrong in making defendant No. 1 liable even to the extent of his share in the joint family property.

(3.) I hold that the document is not a promissory note and that defendant No. 1 is not liable even to the extent of his share in the joint family property. The document contains a promise by the executant to pay the promisee the stated amount and contains the following additional words :- -