HUDI GOSHAON Vs. SUDI GOSHAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HUDI, son of Goshaon, approached the Panchayat, Bhattu Sansal, praying for a decree for a sum of Rs. 200/- against the defendants on the basis of a promissory note executed in his favour. The principal amount was described to be Rs. 175/and a sum of Rs. 25/- was claimed by way of interest. The Panchayat duly held an enquiry into the allegations. Ludia defendant made a statement stating that the promissory note in question bore only his thumb-impression and that the other defendants, Sudi and Shrimati Dhochki, affixed their thumb-impressions after admitting the debt to be correct. He had refunded Rs. 30/- and therefore he expressed his readiness and willingness to pay the balance due from him as his share. Sudi defendant stated that the promissory note did bear his thumb-impression but he had done so under some misunderstanding, the misunderstanding was represented to be that Ludia alone would be responsible for the payment of the amount. Shrimati Dhochki also admitted the affixation of her thumb-mark in token of her consent but she stated that she was not liable to pay any amount since the responsibility to repay the loan was not hers.

(2.) ON behalf of Hudi, Shri Suraj Ram, the scribe of the pronote appeared as a witness and he deposed that he had scribed the pronote after the settlement of the dispute between the parties, and all the three defendants affixed their thumb-impressions after admitting the contents of the promissory note to be correct. Atma, who is a witness to the pronote, also appeared in support of the plaintiff's version. The defendants produced one Waziru as a witness who, though not a witness to the promissory note, stated that he once gathered a Panchayat about the dispute in question and the Panchayat held that only Ludia would be liable to pay Rs. 175/ -. The promissory note, according to Waziru, was executed and completed in his presence.

(3.) AFTER considering the material, the Panchayat unanimously passed a decree for a total sum of Rs. 200/- in favour of the plaintiff against the three defendants. The parties were however ordered to bear their own costs of the proceedings. This conclusion was based on the finding that the defendants' witness was unreliable and also that Ludia's claim that he had already refunded Rs. 30/- was unsubstantiated. I may here mention that the Panchayat consisted of four persons out of whom two signed their names in English. Those who signed their names in english are Dina Nath and Uttam Chand. The other two Panches, Buta Ram and sham Lal, signed their names in Urdu.