ROOPCHAND Vs. BATAISA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal under section 100 CPC against the judgment of affirmance.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,800/ -. Second Additional Civil Judge, Class II, Damoh by judgment and decree dated 13.11.1987 passed in Civil Suit No. 13B/87 decreed the suit. Defendant aggrieved by the same preferred appeal and the District Judge, Damoh by judgment and decree dated 17.11.1988 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1B/88 dismissed the appeal. Defendant being aggrieved by the same has preferred this appeal. By order dated 3.8.1989 appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :

(3.) IT is relevant here to state that plaintiff in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 has stated about deposit of money by her to the defendant and his son as also receipt granted by the defendant and his son. However, in the written statement the defendant has simply denied the assertion made in those paragraphs. It is relevant here to state that the defendant has not raised issue of limitation and accordingly the trial Court did not go into this question at all. However, before the lower appellate Court, defendant contended that the suit is barred by limitation, but his contention was repelled by the lower appellate Court.