RAM RAJA RAM Vs. DHRUBA CHARAN JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiff against a decree of reversal arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,119.35 on the basis of a promissory note dated 4-10-1966,

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that he is the sole proprietor of the firm "Bhagwan Ram Ramrajaram" and he carries on business in steel furnilure, asbestos etc. The defendant was serving as a salesman under him and was in charge of cash and stock. The plaintiff while checking the accounts of the firm detected shortage of cash to the tune of Rs. 4,500/-and the defendant admitted to have misappropriated the same and voluntarily executed the suit promissory note in his own hand on 4-10-1966 agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest at the rate of 12 p. c. p. a. During the period from 5-6-1968 to 5-41969 the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 550/- by instalments and endorsed the total amount of payment on the back of the promissory note on 5-4-1969. He also adjusted a sum of Rs. 830.65 out of his pay from 5-5-1969 to 29-10-1970, leaving a balance of Rs, 3,119.35.

(3.) The defendant admitted execution of the promissory note but contended that it was forcibly obtained from him under threat and coercion. He denied having acknowledged his liability under the promissory note. His contention was that he was only in charge of accounts and under the instructions of the plaintiff he was maintaining account books in duplicate -- one for the purpose of avoiding payment of sales-tax and income-tax and the other indicating true account of sale and purchase. Once the sales-tax authorities seized the duplicate accounts and the plaintiff suspected the defendant to have given information to the Sales-tax Department. On 4-10-1966, the defendant was called to the plaintiff's house and he denied having given any information to the Sales-tax authorities, but he was forced to execute the suit promissory note under threat and coercion. It was also contended that even after execution of the promissory note the defendant was forced to serve under the plaintiff and the endorsement of payment on the back of the promissory note was forcibly obtained from him under threat and coercion although no payment in fact was made.