RAM AVADH Vs. KEDAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendant arises in the following circumstances. The respondent Kedar Nath commenced an action for recovery of principal amount of Rs. 1000.00 plus a further sum of Rs. 175.00 as interest from the defendant-appellant with the allegation that the defendant had obtained a loan of the said sum of Rs. 1000.00 agreeing to repay the same on demand and executing a pronote for the same on 20-6-1965 in favour of the mother of the respondent Smt. Rajwanta. He had also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The plaintiff alleged that he and his mother formed a joint Hindu family; that the mother was the Karta of that family; that the said loan was advanced out of the said joint family funds, and that Smt. Rajwanta having died the plaintiff was entitled to recover the said loan with interest.

(2.) THE defendant contested the suit on a number of grounds. He pleaded, inter alia, that he had not borrowed any sum as alleged and that the pronote and the receipt were forged documents. He also pleaded that the suit was barred by time and that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit without obtaining a succession certificate.

(3.) THE sole point urged on behalf of the appellant was that both the courts below have erred in holding that no succession certificate was required for maintaining the suit. The submission was that the mother of the plaintiff-respondent was not a coparcener, hence on her demise her interest in the debt in question did not pass by survivorship to the plaintiff. The plaintiff being the son of Smt. Rajwanta, the argument proceeded, received her property by succession as her heir and therefore the court should not have passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff, unless he obtained and produced a succession certificate under Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act. In order to appropriate this argument, it is necessary to bear in mind that both the courts below have found as a fact that the plaintiff and his mother Smt. Rajwanta formed a joint Hindu family and that the loan in question was advanced to the defendant out of joint family funds. These two findings are based on appreciation of the evidence on record and the surrounding circumstance of the case and being findings of fact are conclusive. It was also found that the pronote was executed in favour of the mother of the plaintiff because she was the Karta of the family.