BHARAT PRASAD Vs. PARAS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Bharat Prasad who was the plaintiff in the trial Court. Bharat Prasad brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of Rs. 1,591/9/3. The plaintiff's case was that he and defendant No- 4 carried on partnership business of sugar manufacture in 1360 Fasli. Hardeo Singh,. father of defendants 1 and 2 and husband of defendant No. 3, was given Rs. 1,500/- by the partnership in lieu of his promise to supply 2500 maunds of sugarcane juice during the season at the prevalent rate to the partnership. It was further agreed that Hardeo Singh would pay damages at the rate of one anna per maund in respect of short supply, if any. Hardeo Singh supplied only 217 maunds 27 seers juice which was worth Rs. 217/10/9. In a division of the assets of partnership, this particular debt was allotted to the plaintiff. Hence-he brought the present suit for recovery ot Rs. 1,282/5/3 as excess amount paid by the partnership to Hardeo Singh, Rs. 142/10/- as damages for short supply and Rs. 166/10/- as interest. The suit was resisted by defendants 1, 2 and 3 on the ground that the amount due from Hardeo Singh had been paid off by him, and that the present suit was barred by Section 69 of the Partnership-Act as well as Section, 130 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) The trial Court repelled all the three pleas-of the defendants, and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,448/15/3 with costs against the assets of Hardeo Singh in the hands of defendants 1 to 3. The lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Dissatisfied with the said judgment the plaintiff filed a second appeal.

(3.) So far as the plea of payment is concerned, the defendants mainly relied on an admission made by Hardeo Singh about his liability to pay during his illness before his death. On this aspect of the case the defendants adduced evidence to the effect that Bharat Prasad had visited Hardeo Singh when the latter was ill. At that time Hardeo Singh had told Bharat Prasad that the amount which was due from him to Bharat Prasad had been paid up, and that the latter should return the bond to his wife. In reply Bharat Prasad had said that the entire amount had been paid up, and he would return the said bond. In support of this admission the defendants produced Srimati Himanchali, widow of Hardeo Singh, and three other witnesses, viz. Loney Singh, Girdhari and Chinta. As, in my opinion, the admission was not quite clear and unambiguous, I framed an issue to that effect, and remanded it to the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court, after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases, has given its finding to the effect that the defendants have failed to prove their case that the plaintiff had made an admission to Hardep Singh as alleged on behalf of the defendants.