JOTI PARSHAD JAI GOPAL Vs. KARTAR SINGH SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs who have been unsuccessful in their suit for recovery of Rs. 1597/4/- both before the Subordinate Judge and the learned District Judge, Patiala, have come in second appeal to this Court.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. A sum of Rs. 1500/- was deposited by one Nand Singh Bala in the year 1942 with the plaintiff firm Ralla Ram Jai Gopal of Patiala. Nand Singh Bala wanted to do some business in the purchase and sale of gold. Actually 25 tolas of gold were purchased in the account of Nand Singh Bala by the plaintiff firm and the profit of Rs. 600/- accruing on this transaction was credited in his account. Nand Singh Bala also got some ornaments made by the plaintiff firm and ultimately a sum of Rs. 1395/11/9 stood at the credit of Nand Singh Bala when he died in April 1943. On the death of Nand Singh Bala, S. Kartar Singh defendant-respondent No. 1, father of Mst. Hardev Kaur widow of Nand Singh Bala, defendant No. 2 went to the plaintiff firm in Company of Meem Chand and asked for the return of the sum which stood at the credit of Nand Singh Bala. According to the evidence, Meem Chand at whose instance Nand Singh Bala had opened an account with the plaintiff firm, on the assurance of S. Kartar Singh, asked the plaintiffs to pay this amount. The amount was paid to the defendants in 1945. Subsequently a suit was filed by Atma Singh and Sujan Singh, sons of Nand Singh Bala, against the plaintiff firm for recovery of Rs. 1395/11/9. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal the District Judge gave a decree in favour of the sons of Nand Singh in 1946 holding that they were entitled to the deposit which had been made in the name of their father. In execution, of that decree the sum of Rs. 1597/4/- was paid to Atma Singh and Sujan Singh some time in July 1949. The plaintiffs made an unsuccessful appeal to the High Court.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal a notice was sent to S. Kartar Singh to return the amount as the sons of Nand Singh Bala had recovered the sum of Rs. 1597/4/- from the plaintiffs in execution of the decree. S. Kartar Singh replied that the suit had been decreed as a result of the plaintiff's mistakes and omissions and he was not liable. It may be mentioned here that in the written statement filed by the plaintiffs in reply to the suit of Atma Singh and Sujan Singh, it was pleaded that the money by Nand Singh was deposited in the name of his wife Hardev Kaur and was paid to the right person. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff firm that the written statement had been filed and all subsequent proceedings in the suit, including the appeal to the High Court, taken at the instance and advice of the respondent, S. Kartar Singh, who was at that time the Registrar of the Pepsu High Court. Another notice was sent to S. Kartar Singh on 27-9-1950 in which it was mentioned that his advocate had asked the plaintiffs that the suit should not be filed till the decision of the High Court. There is evidence to support the assertion of the plaintiffs that S. Kartar Singh sent a message through Mr. Daily Chand Gupta Advocate who appeared as P.W. 6, that the plaintiff should stay his hands till the decision of the High Court. Ultimately the present suit was filed on 7-7-1951. The suit has been dismissed on the ground that the amount of Rs. 1395/11/9 did not belong to the defendants S. Kartar Singh and Hardev Kaur to whom the payment had been made. It has also been held that the suit is barred by time. In the result the plaintiff firm has been made to pay the amount due to Nand Singh Bala twice over, once to his widow and another time to his two sons.