RADHAKISAN TIJULAL AGRAWAL Vs. JAYANTILAL HARGOVINDAS AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No. 1 in Civil Suit No. 229 of 3964 of the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gondia, has preferred this second appeal against the decree for money passed in that suit. The said decree has been confirmed by the Assistant Judge, Bhandara, in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1966.

(2.) Defendant No. 1 had been carrying on business at Gondia in the name of "Tijulal Radhakisan". The plaintiff's case, in brief, is that defendant No. 2 was the Munim i.e. the manager of defendant No. 1 and he was managing the business of defendant No. 1 at Gondia. In his capacity as such manager, he, on 1-12-1961, took Rs. 2500 for and on behalf of defendant No. 1 as a hand loan and agreed to pay interest at 9 per cent per annum. Thereafter it is stated in the plaint that defendant No. 2 had executed a receipt which is on record as Ex.31. The plaintiff demanded the amount from the defendants. He sent a notice (Ex. 34) to defendant No. 1 on 28-7-1964 calling upon him to pay the amount. Defendant No. 1 gave a reply on 3-8-1964 contending that he had no transaction with the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter sent a notice (Ex. 32) dated 8-8-1964 to defendant No. 2 informing him that defendant No. 1 had disowned the transaction. Defendant No. 2 sent a reply dated 14-8-1964 that the transaction had been entered for and on behalf of defendant No. 1 and as such defendant No. 2 could not be liable. After this correspondence, the plaintiff filed the suit under appeal to recover the principal amount of Rs. 2500 together with the interest of Rs. 618.75 from defendant No. 1. The suit was based on the original consideration and not on the receipt.

(3.) Defendant No. 2 by his written statement (Ex. 15) contended that he was one of the Munims or the managers of defendant No. 1 at Gondia. As far as the suit transaction was concerned, he alleged that the plaintiff had previously made a deposit with defendant No. 1 of Rs. 2500 and that it was renewed from time to time. According to him, the receipt (Ex. 31) was a renewal and nothing more. The written statement of defendant No. 1 is at Ex. 14. He contended that defendant No. 2 had no authority to incur any loan. According to him, no such loan was incurred as he was neither informed nor his consent or approval was taken by defendant No. 2.