MOHUNT SATYANARAYAN GIRI Vs. NANDA GOPAL SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tile only point which arises for decision in this appeal on behalf of the debtor is whether the registered bond on which the plaintiffs have filed the present suit had closed the previous dealings, and whether the same is hit by the provisions contained in proviso (i) to Section 35 (1), Bengal Money-Lenders Act.

(2.) The relevant facts necessary to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties may be shortly stated. The predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs respondents had advanced certain sums of money on different dates to one Protap Chandra Giri who was the Goswami of a certain debot-tar estate. After the death Protap Chandra Giri, Rudrananda Giri Goswami borrowed Rs. 200/- on the 26th POUS, 1325 B. S. On the 12th Falugun 1325 B. S. (24-2-1919), there was an accounting between Rudrananda and the plaintiffs, and it appeared that out of the total advance made to Pro-tap of Rs. 14494/8as. Rs. 9571/14as. had been repaid leaving a balance of Rs. 4922/10as; the interest which had accumulated came up to Rs. 4834/6as. making a total of Rs. 9767/-; Rs. 200/-which had been borrowed by Rudrananda himself was added to the amount which was found due after accounting, as stated aforesaid.

(3.) The amounts advanced and the different sums paid back are admitted by both the parties. The plaintiffs claimed that the amount found due on 24-2-1919, was not a transaction which could not be reopened, and the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree on that, footing. On the other hand, the defence was that the adjustment or agreement between the parties on 24-2-1919, did not close the previous dealings and could not be taken to have created a new obligation which would attract the provisions contained in proviso (i) to Section 36 (1), Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the defence and has allowed the plaintiffs' claim as made.