SITARAM DEOKARAN Vs. BALDEO JAIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second appeal by defendant No. 3 Sitaram against whom the plaintiff's suit has been decreed for Rs. 156/8/ -.

(2.) THE learned District Judge, Nimar (Khandwa), came to the conclusion that the appellant (defendant No. 3) must have instigated defendant No. 1, Jangoo, who is respondent No. 2 in this appeal, to give up the plaintiff's service. It has also been found that the appellant has been on inimical terms with the plaintiff.

(3.) THE facts found are as follows : Defendant No. 1 Jangoo (respondent No. 2 in this appeal) entered into a contract with the plaintiff for taking a loan of Rs. 225/and in lieu thereof executed a Naukrinama on 2-1-1948 to serve the plaintiff on a petty sum of Rs. 2/- per month till the repayment of the loan. In other words, he entered into a contract for serving the plaintiff on this meagre salary for a period of 112 months and a half. Defendant No. 1 Jangoo served the plaintiff for 2 years 1. 0 months and 8 days, that is, he remained in the service of the plaintiff on Rs. 2/- per month from 2-1-1948 to 10-11-1950. Then, he left his service. Subsequently, he took up service as a watchman with the appellant Sitaram, presumably on more advantageous terms. The plaintiff filed a suit against Jangoo and his surety, the appellant and one Habbuji. The appellant alone contested the suit, but his contention has been overruled and a decree for rs. 156/8/- has been passed against the appellant and defendant No. 1. The appellant comes in second appeal to this Court.