SATYA NARAIN Vs. NANKI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal from the decree of the Additional District Judge, Kanpur confirming that of the First Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur dismissing his suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs 6,529/4/6 plus interest on the basis of a promissory note. The plaintiff appellant Satya Narain and the defendant respondent Smt. Nanki Devi are related, though the relationship is distant. The appellant alleged that the respondent's husband was his uncle (mama) who died in 1949 leaving two widows one of whom is the respondent Nanki Devi; that the respondent resides in last Pakistan; that after her husband's death the two widows had disputes: that the respondent required money for recovery of the debts due to her late husband and requested him (the appellant) to help him and he agreed; that he advanced her money to triable her to file a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge at Fatehpur and another sum of money to pay a part of the sale price of the house which the purchased in Kanpur, and a further sum of money to enable her to carry out the repairs of the house purchased by her; that the respondent was unable to re-pay the amounts borrowed by her but on the appellant's insistence she executed a promissory note on 16-5-56 for Rs. 6529/4/6 with interest at the rate of eight annas per cent per month: that the respondent had not paid this amount in spite of several demands and the appellant was compelled to file the suit as the limitation was expiring.

(2.) THE respondent resisted the suit and denied all liability. She denied that she had executed any promissory not to borrow any money at any time from the appellant, and alleged that the latter had filed a falsa claim at the instigation of the co-widow of her husband. She further alleged that after the death of her husband the appellant was looking after her affairs till 1956 and during this period he was getting money from the respondent under various pretexts and in this manner squandered various amounts by misrepresentation. She contended that during their dealings the appellant was occupying a position of confidence and was also in a position to dominate her will. She alleged that he was getting various papers signed by her under the pretext that they were required in connection with the litigation in the Fatehpur Court and further alleged (to quote her own words),

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent at considerable length. As this case presented some peculiar features, I permitted the appellant's counsel. In the interests of justice, to prepare a typed paper book of the entire record for my perusal. The hearing of this appeal lasted several days.