DURGA CHARAN RAM Vs. ACHUTA PATI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF 's suit is for recovery of money based on a handnote (Ex. 1) for Rs. 1000/ - paid in cash on 28 -7 -1958. The claim was laid for recovery of Rs. 1360/ - inclusive of interest. In the written statement, the Defendants initially denied the execution of the pronote, but ultimately stated that it was executed as a Kaida (security) towards the dues under the credit transaction. No details were given in the written statement as to the date of the transaction, the amount of credit and for what credit amount the security was given. The learned trial Court accepted the defence version that the suit handnote was a kaida and held that there was no passing of consideration. He, however, overruled the defence objection that the Plaintiff was a money lender in regular course of business.

(2.) THE appeal was dismissed on both the findings being confirmed.

(3.) THE concurrent findings of facts that the suit pronote was given by way Kaida and no consideration passed thereunder, were arrived at by the lower appellate Court on the following analysis: