KHURAIJAM ONGBI THOIBISANA DEVI Vs. AKOIJAM AMUBI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL law is a lawyer's paradise. In its labyrinth just cases are also sometimes lost. Here is a simple case as to whether the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,000 from the plaintiff or not; and whether the latter can realise the same from the former through the assistance of the Court? But legal coverings have not allowed the kernel to be seen so easily. The law points urged before US are (1) whether the suit was hit by Section 10 U) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946, hereinafter the "Act". which was extended to this Union Territory by notification dated 4-8-61?; (2) whether any order passed or concession made in the case operated as res judicata or estopped by conduct? and (3) whether Section 68 of the Evidence Act attracted or not? And if so, whether requirement of Section 69 was complied or not?

(2.) BEFORE adverting to these questions, the relevant facts of the case may be noted. According to plaintiff (whose legal representatives are the respondents), the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, one Kulabidhu Singh had borrowed on 31-3-63 a sum of Rs, 6,000. In token of this borrowing, a document was also executed on that day being Ext. A/I. But as the defendant failed to repay the loan in spite of repeated demands, the suit in question was filed against Kulabidhu for realisation of the principal amount of Rs. 6,000 along with the interest of Rs. 3,500 calculated at the stipulated rate of 3 per cent per month. The defendant denied taking of loan and stated that he had not executed any document in this connection.

(3.) THE defendant died on 27-2-1969 and his legal representatives filed their written statement on 10-11-1969 in which inter alia a plea was taken that the suit was barred by provisions of the Act. When the question of framing issues on the basis of this pleading was taken up on 5-12-1969, the learned trial Court observed, inter alia, as below: