PARI KANTILAL LALBHAI Vs. DEVCHAND NATHALAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the original plaintiff. His suit to recover Rs. 2,000/- with interest from the defendant, which he stated he had given in cash to the defendant on 2-11-1965 was dismissed by both the Courts below. The finding of both the Courts is that Ex. 36 on which the plaintiff sues and on which he relies is admitted by the defendant. The defendant in his written statement and evidence has admitted the contents of Ex. 36. He admits having signed Ex. 36. He also states in his deposition, Ex. 78, that he took Rs. 2,000/- in cash on 2nd November 1955 from Sharafi account of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint was that he gave Rs. 2,000/- to the defendant on 2nd November, 1955. All these allegations in the plaint are, therefore admitted both in his evidence and in the written statement by the defendant. On this fact alone, the plaintiff's suit should have been decreed in full. But the learned Judge proceeded to consider what he called the theory of the transaction. In such a case, we are not concerned with theories. It may be said that the plaintiff's theory was that certain accounts were settled between the parties before the transaction in issue. It may be that the theory of the defendant as to what happened prior to the time of the transaction is different. We are not concerned with either of these theories. It may be that the plaintiff's theory as to what happened prior to the transaction in issue is false. But as I stated above, we are not concerned with the theories as to what happened prior to the transaction, but we are only concerned with what happened at the time of the alleged transaction.

(2.) The contention that admissions made by the respondent in his pleadings and in his evidence at the hearing are a result of an error cannot be entertained, because when a party to a civil suit makes an admission in the pleadings or in his evidence at the hearing of the suit, those admissions are conclusive. Such admissions have to be distinguished from the admissions made prior to the suit and which are given as evidence at the hearing of the suit. Admissions made in the pleadings and in the evidence of the party at the hearing of the suit are conclusive and cannot be challenged.

(3.) The contention that the writing, Ex. 36, was not to be acted upon cannot be entertained, because there was no issue on the point and no evidence on the point either. The document was acted upon and Rs. 2, 000/- were admittedly paid in cash. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention either.