GOPAL Vs. JAGDISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit, instituted by Jagdish Singh and his brother, Vijay Bahadur Singh, the plaintiffs-respondents, to redeem certain ornaments, which had been pawned by their father, Deep Chand, with the appellant Gopal alias Gopla (defendant l), who will hereafter be referred to as the defendant, to secure a loan through Behari (defendant 2). The plaintiffs' case was that their father had pawned three ornaments; but the defendant admitted the pawning of only two ornaments. The Courts below have found that, in fact, only two ornaments were pawned.

(2.) The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had failed to allow redemption of the ornaments in spite of notice and the offer to repay the loan. They further alleged that they and their father, Deep Chand, have always been agriculturists and the defendant was a creditor by profession; consequently, they were entitled to relief under the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934.

(3.) The case put forward on behalf of the defendant was that when the plaintiff's father was unable to repay the loan, the ornaments pawned with him were sold with his consent and the sale proceeds were appropriated towards the satisfaction of the loan. He denied the plaintiff's allegation that they were agriculturists and contended that they were not entitled to any relief under the Agriculturists Relief Act.