RATI SINGH Vs. RAM PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are father and son, are the defendants in a money suit, namely, M.S. 61 of 1963, which is pending in the court of the Munsif 1st at Sasaram. This suit has been instituted by the members of the opposite party, who are also father and son, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4200/-as principal and interest on basis of a handnote for Rs. 3900/- dated 29-8-60 alleged to have been executed by defendant No. 1. that is, the present petitioner No. 1 as Karta of the joint family comprising himself and his son defendant No. 2.

(2.) According to the admitted case of the parties, one motor truck had been purchased jointly by the members of the two families. There is some difference between the parties whether the purchase was made jointly by the two plaintiffs and two defendants or by plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 2 only, but we are not concerned with that aspect in the present proceeding. It is further admitted that an agreement was arrived at between the parties on 29-8-60 for sale of the half share of the plaintiffs' family in this motor truck to the defendant's family for a consideration of Rs. 3900/- and in pursuance of this agreement, an unregistered sale deed was executed by plaintiff No. 2 and the handnote in suit was executed by defendant No. 1 in lieu of the consideration money. It may be added that there is some difference also on the point as to whether the recital portion in the handnote had been scribed out or not, for, according to the plaintiffs, the hand-note had been duly scribed out and was then thumb-marked by defendant No. 1 and the execution portion thereof was written by defendant No. 2 on behalf of his father defendant No. 1 while, according to the defendants, the contents of the handnote had not been scribed out but only the execution portion was written by defendant No. 2 for defendant No. 1 and the thumb-mark of defendant No. 1 was taken. We are, however, not concerned at present with this controversy also. According to the defence case, as the registration of the truck and the ownership book thereof stood in the name of plaintiff No. 2 and his name also figured in the records of the Financier, who had advanced the money for purchase of the truck on hire-purchase basis, it was agreed between the parties that plaintiff No. 2 would write letters addressed to the Financier as well as the Registration Officer for transfer of the truck in the name of defendant No. 2 and would also swear an affidavit to that effect. The defendants' case further is that it was also agreed between the parties that the contract relating to the sale of the truck and with respect to the hand note would not be deemed to be complete until the name of defendant No. 2 was mutated in place of plaintiff No. 2 on completion of all the aforesaid formalities. Their case further is that plaintiff No. 2 actually swore an affidavit and also wrote letters addressed to the Financier and the Registration Officer for transfer of the truck in name of defendant No. 2 but when the affidavit and the letter addressed to the Financier were produced before the Financier, he refused to accept the same on the ground that these documents had been signed by the plaintiff No. 2 in Hindi, although in the papers relating to the hire-purchase agreement, plaintiff No. 2 had put his signatures in English. A request was thereon made to plaintiff No. 2 to give a fresh affidavit and a fresh letter to the Financier after signing his name in English but he refused to do so with the result that the name of defendant No. 2 could not be mutated in place of plaintiff No. 2. It is further alleged that subsequently plaintiff No. 2 sold his half share to another person and in consequence thereof, defendant No. 2 had to purchase that share from the transferee of the plaintiff.

(3.) The hearing of the suit was taken up in the court below in due course and after the close of the evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses, the examination of the defence witnesses was taken up. It transpires that during the examination of D.W. 8 Lakshmi Singh, the defendants wanted to put certain questions to this witness which were disallowed by the court below. A petition was thereon filed by the defendants for allowing these questions and as would appear from the order of the court below, these questions were embodied in the petition. The Court below has however, rejected this petition by its order dated the 31st July, 1969 on the ground that the questions were not permissible in view of the provisions of Section 92 of the Evidence Act. The present petition in revision arises out of this order.