JAGANNATH Vs. JAGDISHCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 22/08/08 passed by I Additional District Judge Neemuch, Camp-Manasa in Civil Suit No. 5- B/07 whereby the suit filed by respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,24,600/- was decreed in part and the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs,78,500/- along with interest @ 6% PA w.e.f. 10/04/07, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,24,600/- on 18/04/07 alleging that respondent and the appellant are the agriculturist. Respondent is also in trade. It was alleged that on 28/04/01 appellant took a loan of Rs.78,500/- from the respondent and executed a Hundi in favour of respondent. It was alleged that appellant agreed to pay the principal amount along with interest @ 2% per month. It was alleged that the entry was made by the respondent in his books of account, which are being kept in regular course of business. It was alleged that respondent repeatedly demanded the appellant for payment but neither the principal nor interest was paid. Further case of respondent was that on 21/04/04 appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/- of which entry was made by the appellant in his own handwriting on the Hundi itself. It was alleged that thereafter again on 10/04/07 registered notice was issued by the respondent, but no amount was paid. It was alleged that the appellant is liable for payment of a sum of Rs. 1,24,600/- which includes interest after deducting amount of Rs. 1,000/- deposited by the appellant. It was alleged that the cause of action has accrued to the respondent w.e.f. 28/04/01 and thereafter w.e.f. 21/04/04 when part payment was made by the appellant and lastly on 10/04/07 when the notice was issued. It was prayed that the suit be decreed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent submits that after due appreciation of evidence learned trial Court has decreed the suit, which requires no interference. It is submitted that since it was Darshniya Hundi, therefore, it was not required to be stamped and the learned Court below has rightly held that the document is admissible in evidence. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Padamchand Vs. Shrinath, 1980 JLJ 839 wherein while taking into consideration Article-13 of Schedule 1 of Stamp Act, 1899 this Court has held that Shahjog Hundi are not covered by any article and therefore no stamp is necessary. LEARNED counsel further submits that in the facts and Circumstances of the case learned trial Court has rightly held that the document was admissible in evidence. In alternate learned counsel submits that if this Court is of the view that the document was required to be stamped, then at the most procedure laid down under Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act has to be fallowed and the suit can not be dismissed on that ground. So for as limitation is concerned, learned counsel submits that since it was Darshniya Hundi payable on demand, therefore, it can not be said that the suit was barred by law of limitation, it is submitted that the starting point of limitation is the date of demand by notice. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed.