J BABULAL Vs. T JAYARAMA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS 2 to 6 are the appellants. One Javanthraj and appellants 2 and 3 filed suit O.S. No. 101/72 before the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs. 28,719.66. Pending suit the first plaintiff Javanthraj passed away. Appellants 1 and 2 were recognized as his legal representatives and appellants 3 to 5 were added as his legal representatives.

(2.) THE case as set out in the plaint was as follows: THE first plaintiff was the father and appellants 2 and 3 were his sons and they were undivided doing money lending business. THE first respondent is the father of respondents 2 and 3 and husband of the fourth respondent. THE sixth respondent was the mother of the first respondent and was the fifth defendant in the suit. All the respondents resided in No. 118, Kaja Sahib Street, Pallavaram, as joint family members. THEy were a trading family with a number of ventures. For the purpose of convenience the businesses were in the names of one or other joint family members and the businesses were carried on with joint family funds. THEir joint family was also running an agency for sale of cement, apart from a provision shop in the Pallavaram Market. THE cement business was run in the name of J.M. Traders at Pallavaram. THEy had regular money dealings with the appellants between 15.11.1968 and 17.4.1971 for their joint family business. One or the other of respondents 1 to 3 would receive cash from the appellants. As on 18.2.1971 the borrowings by the respondents amounted to Rs. 17,500/- and on 25.2.71 a sum of Rs. 1200/- was advanced and on 5.4.1971 another sum of Rs. 3000/- was advanced and the total amounts advanced as on 5.4.1971 came to Rs. 21,700/-. On that date, the third respondent received a sum of Rs. 3000/- and passed a voucher to that effect. Again on 17.4.1971 another sum of Rs. 2000/- was borrowed by the respondents. This amount was received by the second respondent on the instructions of the first respondent and he also passed a receipt on the same day. Thus in all the appellants had advanced a sum of Rs. 23,700/-, which was binding on the respondents. Though the respondents individually received amounts and passed the vouchers as agent of the respondents, all the respondents were liable. THE respondents orally agreed to pay interest at 6 paise per day for Rs. 100/- and they were also paying the same at such rate till 18.7.1971. THEy were not entitled to any benefits under Act 4 of 1938 or any other Debt Relief Act since they were assessed to income tax. In spite of demands, the respondents refused to pay the amount and denied the same or having borrowed any amount from the appellants.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 filed appeal in A.S. No. 16/82 before the District Court, Chengalpattu. The lower Appellate Court framed the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the respondents advanced amounts as alleged by them and if so, whether all the appellants are liable for the same" (2) Whether the suit is not maintainable" and (3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation" On an appreciation of the material on record, and the evidence, oral and documentary, the learned District Judge found that the respondents were all living together as joint family having a common mess at No. 118, Kaja Sahib Street, that the businesses run in the different names were all joint family businesses and that they needed funds during the period 1968 to 1971 for the various businesses. However, the learned District Judge held that the first respondent had not signed in Exs. A-1 and A-2 and that there was nothing to indicate that the amounts mentioned therein were received by the respective parties at the instance of the first respondent or for the benefit of all the respondents. So holding the learned District Judge dismissed the suit so far as respondents 1, 4 and 5 were concerned and confirmed the decree of the trial court with regard to respondents 2 and 3. The learned District Judge found that the suit was maintainable and that it was not bared by limitation. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal to the extent indicated above his judgment and decree dated 12.12.1983.