BAPOOLAL @ CHEN SINGH KIRAD Vs. GOKUL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has felt aggrieved of a judgment and decree rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora), dated 6.4.1998 in Civil Suit No. 11-B/87. By impugned decree, the learned Additional District Judge has been pleased to partially decree the suit in favour of plaintiff. Since the defendant though suffered a partial decree against him, has not chosen to question its legality and hence, the decree to that extent has become final. The only question that needs to be examined at the instance of appellant (plaintiff) is whether the learned Additional District Judge was right in his conclusion in partially decreeing the suit or whether he should have fully decreed the suit and that too without imposing any conditions in the impugned judgment/decree. Facts of case lie in a narrow compass. They need mention in brief.

(2.) As stated supra, appellant is the plaintiff whereas respondent is the defendant.

(3.) On 8.7.1984, the defendant took a cash loan of Rs. 40,000.00 from the plaintiff and agreed to pay Re. 1.00 on Rs. 100.00 per month. In lien of loan, by way of security, the defendant mortgaged his house in favour of plaintiff and also delivered possession to the plaintiff. All this was done in presence of witnesses. The plaintiff then let out this house to defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 125.00 and got one Kirayanama executed. Since, the defendant did not pay either principal sum, i.e. Rs. 40,000.00 nor interest accrued thereon, despite several reminders from the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the recovery of Rs. 54,400.00 on the aforementioned allegations.