REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

BITTAN BIBI Appellant

V/S

KUNTU LAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

LAMPLEIGH V. BRATHWAIT [REFERRED TO]
CROFTS V. BEALS [REFERRED TO]
CREARS V. HUNTERS [REFERRED TO]
R. V. GOMPERTZ [REFERRED TO]
AVADH SINGH V. RANDHIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PONSFORD V. WALTON [REFERRED TO]
RUNG LAL KALOO RAM V. KEDAR NATH [REFERRED TO]
RUNGLAL KALLO RAM. KEDAR NATH [REFERRED TO]
MIRZA FARIDUN BEG V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
MA PWA MAY V. CHETTIAR FIRM [REFERRED TO]
NAGAPPA CHETTI V. V.A.A.R. FIRM [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL V. RAGHUNATH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMAPPA V. MASUD SAHIB [REFERRED TO]
ALIMANE V. SUBBARAYADU [REFERRED TO]
GOPI MAL V. VIDYA WANTI [REFERRED TO]
UPAN NYO V. UTINT [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR V. GIAN CHAND [REFERRED TO]
MAUNG PO CHEIN V. C.R.V.V.V. CHETTYAR FIRM [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF PESHAWAR V. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA KRISHNAJI V. ZOLBA BALAJI [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASAM V. NAGABHUSHANAM [REFERRED TO]
ALAGAPPA CHETTI VS. ALALNNARAYANAN CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
VAVARTHAR ABDUL WAHAB SAHEB VS. PALLAPOTHA KANAKA ANJANEYALU [REFERRED TO]
M K LODHI VS. ZIA-UL HAQ [REFERRED TO]
LAKHMI DAS VS. LAKHO RAM [REFERRED TO]
R VAIDYANATHA AYYAR VS. SWAMINATHA AYYAR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case are fully narrated in the judgment of my brother Desai J. I agree with him that the appeal of Smt. Bittan Bibi be dismissed as she is clearly liable to pay the amount decreed against her and Kailash Nath. I differ about the appeal of Kailash Nath and agree with the finding of the Court below that Kailash Nath is liable to pay the joint decretal amount.

(2.) The learned District Judge did not record any definite finding about Kailash Nath's being the joint borrower of the various loans or not. I, however, agree with my brother Desai J. that in view of the statement of Smt. Pratap Dei the loans were taken by Smt. Bittan Bibi alone though the actual transactions were at times through Kailash Nath or Seoti Bibi and Manno Bibi. The liability of Kailash Nath to pay the amounts borrowed by his mother depends on the effect of the letter EX. 14 written by Kailash Nath alone with the other aforesaid persons. In this letter these persons stated that they had borrowed the various sums, that they had promised to pay the amounts on insistent demands but had been unable in spite of best efforts to pay anything, that interest was increasing day by day and that therefore, they considered it proper and right to authorise them to sell the pawned ornaments in the market to appropriate the sale proceeds towards the amounts loaned on the security of ornaments and interest thereon and to appropriate any surplus towards the debt of Rs. 1300. They further said in this letter that if any amount still remained due from them they would pay that amount very early.

(3.) The learned District Judge dealt with the question of liability of Kailash Nath in this manner :

Click here to view full judgment.

BITTAN BIBI Vs. KUNTU LAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address