BINDA BASANI DEVI Vs. RAM NANDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by defendant No. 2 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for realisation of Rs. 200/-, with Interest, said to have been borrowed by defendant No. 1, husband of defendant No. 2, for necessity. The suit has been decreed ex parte against defendant No. 1 and on contest against defendant No. 2 (wrongly mentioned in the judgment of the trial court as having been decreed ex parte against defendant No. 2).

(2.) In substance, the case of defendant No. 2 was that she had no more any concern with her husband and hence she was not liable to any extent. The learned Munsif has held that defendant No. 1 had borrowed the money for legal necessity and that defendant No. 2 is also liable as defendants Nos. 1 & 2 were joint. In my opinion, the decree passed against defendant No. 2 must be set aside. The learned Munsif has misconceived the legal position in this case, and even if defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were members of a family, no decree could have been passed against the wife for a loan taken by the husband, for which the latter had executed a handnote. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party has argued that the husband had alienated some of his properties and had gifted away the rest of the properties to his wife and, therefore, the decree against the wife has rightly been passed. The contention is not at all valid in a money suit based on a loan said to have been taken by the husband.

(3.) For the reasons given above, the judgment passed by the Small Cause Court is set aside. In the circumstances there will be no order for costs of this Court