INDERMAL TAKAJI MAHAJAN Vs. RAMPRASAD GOPILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendant 1 is directed against a money decree for Rs. 30,000/- together with interest and costs grounded upon a promissory note dated 10th September, 1962, which he had executed for that sum in favour of the defendant 2, who subsequently endorsed it in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE material facts which are not in controversy may be shortly stated. At Ujjain, the defendant 1, Indermal, had executed in favour of the defendant 2, Mohammad hussain, the promissory note Ex. P. 1 dated 10th September, 1962 for an apparent consideration of Rs. 30,000/-repayable on demand and carrying interest at 6% per annum. On the back of that document, there is an endorsement in favour of the plaintiff, Ramprasad, which purports to have been made at Mhow in indore Civil District within the jurisdiction of the lower Court. Upon demand having been made by the plaintiff for the amount due on the promissory note, the defendant 1 did not make any payment.

(3.) RAMPRASAD (Plaintiff) averred that the promissory note was executed for a cash consideration of Rs. 30,000/-, that it was endorsed in his favour at Mhow for consideration and that, being thus the holder in due course, he is entitled to recover the amount due thereon. While the promisee Mohammad Hussain (defendant 2) accepted these averments, the promisor Indermal (defendant 1)resisted the claim on several grounds.