PARMANAND Vs. KIRANDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit, for the recovery of Rs. 734/ -, which was instituted by Kirandevi respondent on foot of a bond dated February 29, 1952, alleged to have been executed by Parmanand appellant in favour of Umrao Singh for Rs. 540/ -. It was alleged in the first paragraph of the plaint that the sum of Rs. 540/ - was borrowed in cash. The defendant denied the execution of the bond as also the consideration. The first issue framed by the trial Judge was whethe the defendant borrowed from Umrao Singh Rs. 540/ - cash on 29 -2 -52 and executed the bond in his favour.

(2.) THE defendant also took the plea that the transfer of the suit bond by Umrao Singh in favour of Kiran Devi was not permissible in law.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge dismissed the suit deciding is due No. 1 against the plaintiff The first appellate court has reversed that finding and has held that there is no reason to disbelieve Umrao Singh. When the amounts were paid from time to time it is not expected to keep witnesses present when the amounts were advanced. The learned Judge relied on Mahafazus Rahim Vs, Babulal ( : AIR 1949, Nag 113). In the result he passed a decree for Rs. 685/8/ - in favour of Kiran Devi.