GUNJESHWARI Vs. PATRI TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -respondent had executed a pronote in favour of the defendant appellant. The plaintiff instituted a suit under Section 33 of the 0. P. Agriculturists. Relief Act for accounting. In the plaint it was alleged by the plaintiff that the principal and interest due under the pronote had been paid by the usufruct of a plot of land which had been given by him to the defendant. The Courts below have found that no plot of land had been given by the plaintiff to the defendant and have declared the amount of principal and interest due on the pronote and payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.

(2.) THE defendant has come up in appeal, and it is contended on his behalf that the suit was not maintainable under Section 33 of the Agriculturists, Relief Act, inasmuch as it was alleged by the plaintiff that the amount due under the pronote had been paid off, and in support of the contention reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in Sunder Lal v. Kaushi Ram, 1933 A.L.J 9 6 :, A W R (H. C.) 680.

(3.) IN the case upon which reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant I find that it was admitted that the bond in respect of which the accounting was claimed had been returned to the plaintiff and plaintiff had been informed by the defendant that it had been fully satisfied. That case is, therefore, clearly distinguishable and does not support the contention put forward on behalf of the appellant.