BHIM SINGH Vs. MEWA SINGH AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Bhim Singh, who succeeded in the trial court, but has been non-suited by the first appellate court, has filed the instant second appeal.

(2.) Case of the Plaintiff-Appellant is that he and his brother used to jointly sell their crop at the shop of Defendant No. 1 - Commission Agent, of which Defendants No. 2 and 3 are partners. Plaintiff and his brother sold their crops jointly till 1999 and thereafter, separately. Since Harri 1995 till Harri 2001 crops, they used to take fertilizers, oil and and insecticides etc. from Defendants No. 1 to 3. On these allegations, the Plaintiff filed suit for rendition of accounts since Kharif 1995 to Kharif 2001 crops sold by the Plaintiff through Defendants No. 1 to 3. Plaintiff also claimed permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from preparing forged and false documents on blank and printed papers, on which Defendants have obtained signatures of Plaintiff and account books, on which Defendants have obtained signatures of Plaintiff and restraining the Defendants from effecting any recovery from the Plaintiff on the basis thereof and from interfering in sale of crop by the Plaintiff through some other Commission Agent and from taking forcible possession of Plaintiff's paddy crop.

(3.) Defendants, in their written statement, admitted that Plaintiff and his brother Jarnail Singh used to sell their crops through Defendant No. 1 since 20.04.1995 till 1998-99 jointly and the account was in the name of Plaintiff Bhim Singh. Thereafter, both the brothers sold their crop separately in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 through their separate accounts. Lastly, they sold their Rabi (Harri) 2001 crop. However, nothing remained due to the Plaintiff and his brother from Defendant No. 1. On the contrary, Plaintiff borrowed Rs. 6,00,000/- from Defendant No. 1 on 10.05.2001 and executed pronote and receipt for the same, whereas Plaintiff's brother Jarnail Singh borrowed Rs. 7,25,000/- on 29.10.2001 from Defendant No. 1 and executed pronote and receipt for the same. Accounts of crops sold by the Plaintiff and his brother have already been settled. Moreover, Defendants No. 1 to 3 never refused to settle their accounts. Plaintiff and his brother themselves are not ready to settle the accounts. Other plaint allegations were broadly controverted. Various other pleas were also raised.