MANGILAL Vs. JADAVCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 the Letters Parent against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) MATERIAL facts for consideration of the question raised in this appeal are as follows: Appellant Mangilal is an agriculturist debtor where as Respondents Jadavchand and Amichand sons of Kundansa are creditors who carried on business of money lending. The Appellant started proceedings under Section 16(1) of the Madhya Bharat Money Lenders Act for accounts of the debts owed by him to the Respondents and for determination of the amount still payable by him to them. The allegations of the Plaintiff were that in Samvat Year 2005 Appellant's son Natthu had pledged certain ornaments with the Respondents. In the Samvat Year 2010 the Respondents entered the transaction in the name of the Appellant in place of that of his son. The principal amount which had been borrowed on the basis of the pledge transaction was Rs. 625. When the Appellant, however, wanted to redeem the pledged articles he was told that the amount recoverable from him was Rs. 1,200. The Appellant went to the Respondents several times in order to see accounts but the same were not shown. The Respondents, it is alleged, had not sent annual accounts to the Appellant as was incumbent upon them under the Madhya Bharat Money Lenders Act. They therefore were not entitled to charge any interest in respect of the period for which no accounts had been sent. In view of this right of the Appellant he asked for accounts and for determination of the amount still payable by him to the Respondents. A declaratory decree to that effect was claimed.

(3.) THE trial Court held that the Respondents had sold the ornaments after the Plaintiff's suit under Section 16(1) of the Madhya Bharat Money Lenders Act had been filed. It was incompetent for them, according to that Courts, to frustrate the decree of a Court by selling away the ornaments and making their own adjustment. The suit was consequently held to be competent. The trial Court thereafter went through the accounts and found that the Appellant was liable to the principal amount of Rs. 775 only but was in no way liable to pay interest amounting to Rs. 373 -75 nP although there was an agreement to pay interest as the Respondents had failed to comply with the requirement of sending annual accounts to the Appellant. It also over -ruled one of the contentions raised on behalf of the Respondents that the Appellant's son Natthu was a necessary party and that in his absence the suit was incompetent. In consequence of these findings a declaration was grafted in favour of the Appellant that he was liable to the Respondent to the extent of Rs. 775 only upto 28 -3 -1928 and that after that date the Respondents would be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 37 N.P. percent per month subject to the condition of their sending annual account.