GOVINDRAM MIHAMAL Vs. CHETUMAL VILLARDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs appeal, whose suit for recovery of an amount under a sarkat note has been dismissed by the two Courts below.

(2.) SO far as this appeal is concerned, no dispute on facts survives for consideration. Certain findings have been given by the two Courts below which are normally binding on this Court, Even otherwise, they appear to be in consonance with the facts and circumstances and do not require to be reconsidered. The position of facts that appears to be proved and which could be taken as a basis for the decision of this second appeal is this: Mithamal, the father of the plaintiff, as a karta of the joint Hindu family, advanced a loan to the defendant on 19-6-1950 under a sarkat note. The loan was renewed br acknowledged by another earkat note, dated 9-6-1953, There was a third sarkat note, dated 9-6-1956. After their renewal Mithamal died in or about February 1958. The plaintiff, who is the eldest son of Mithamal, has filed the present suit on 15-6-1959 for recovery of the amount due under the sarkat note. The plaintiff has claimed the principal amount under the sarkat note together with interest.

(3.) SEVERAL defences were raised. The defendant pleaded that he was not paid any amount at alii Alternatively, it was pleaded that Mithamal never advanced the amount as a karta of the joint Hindu family. It was his personal transaction and the suit by the plaintiff alone is not valid. Mithamal left behind, among other heirs, two married daughters. Without Joining them as parties, the suit was not a properly representative suit and must fail. Yet another defence was that the sarkat note was an acknowledgment within the meaning of Article 1 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act. As the subsequent acknowledgment notes do not bear any stamp, they are inadmissible in evidence for any purpose. In that event the suit on the original cause of action would be barred by limitation. It was also pointed out that the advance was in the nature of money-lending transaction and the plaintiff or his father not having had any licence under the Moneylenders Act the suit ought to be dismissed.