BRIJ MOHANDAS GOKULCHAND Vs. NARSINGHDAS MANOHARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case was that he had deposited Rs. 10,500/- with Manoharilal, the original defendant, on condition that the defendant shall pay out of the said amount any sum required by the plaintiff from time to time and on the amount lying in deposit with the defendant the plaintiff shall get interest. On 2-10-1951 the defendant had sent a note of account under his own signature to the plaintiff in which it was admitted that Rs. 8,449/- were in deposit with him as also the interest due on the said sum. On 12-7-1953 the plaintiff sent a Hundi for Rs. 10000/- for being honoured by the defendant, but he failed to do so. This made the plaintiff suspicious about the intentions of the defendant. He, therefore, sent a notice dated 29-9-1954 demanding the return of the amount together with interest. In reply to that notice the defendant admitted the deposit but put forth certain objections for not satisfying the demand. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit in the Court of Additional District Judge, Shivpuri, for recovery of Rs. 10,343-14-6.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the suit, Manoharilal died and proceedings were taken to bring his legal representatives on record. Apart from the present respondents, who are the legal representatives of Manoharilal, the plaintiff had proposed addition of one more son of Manoharilal as a defendant. His addition was objected to on the ground that he was given in adoption and ceased to be the legal representative of Manoharilal. After enquiry, the Court found that he was, in fact, given in adoption. All this took considerable time. When the legal representatives were substituted, they filed fresh written statements and denied their personal liability. They also totally denied the suit transaction with Manoharilal and also pleaded that the Shivpuri Court had no jurisdiction, as the cause of action arose at gwalior.