RAM LAKHAN PRASAD Vs. NARAIN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendants against whom the plaintiff-respondent had instituted Money Suit No. 63 of 1975 on 11th Dec. 1975, for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,230/- on the basis of two handnotes dated 25th and 27th March, 1974, (Exhibits 2 and 2/a), each for Rs.3,000/-. In the written statements, filed by different sets of the defendants, the suit was contested, inter alia, on the grounds that the handnotes in question were executed in favour of one Sarju Prasad and not in favour of the plaintiff and Sarju Prasad, being a friend of the plaintiff, had manipulated the handnotes in his favour for instituting the suit in question. Both the Courts below, however, have rejected the defendants' defence and have concurrently held that the handnotes were genuine and for consideration, and accordingly, decreed the suit.

(2.) In this Court Mr. Wasi Akhtar, appearing for the appellants, has pressed two questions of law, namely, (i) an adverse inference should have been drawn by the courts below for non-filing of the books of account admittedly being maintained by the plaintiff, and (ii) the suit was not maintainable for non-compliance of the provisions of S.7(5) of the Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1974 (Act 22 of 1975; hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(3.) From a perusal of the judgments of the courts below it does not appear that any issue touching the second point was framed. However, since it is a question of law, I shall deal with it hereinafter, but before that I will dispose of the first question itself, i.e., failure of the courts below to draw adverse inference for non-filing of the books of accounts. Both the courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff on consideration of a large number of materials on the record. The presumption of passing of consideration under S.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act being there, the courts below were not bound to draw adverse inference against the plaintiff for non-filing of the account books. After all, it is an inference of fact to be drawn on various attending circumstances and does not make out a question of law.