SHYAM KISHORE PRASAD SINGH Vs. HARIKANT PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendants 1 to 3 arises out of a money suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,446/- being the amount of principal and interest due on a promissory note dated the 16th October, 1955 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. This handnote was for a sum of Rs. 10,591/-, and defendant No. 1 had agreed to pay interest at the rate of -/8/- per hundred per mensem.

(2.) It appears that this hand-note was executed in respect of the past liability and the first handnote executed by defendant No. 1 as karta and manager of the joint family consisting of defendants 1 to 5 (defendants first party) on the 22nd April, 1944 was in favour of the plaintiff and the husband of defendant No. 6 (defendant second party) for a sum of Rs. 5,900/-, which was advanced in cash. The defendants first party were unable to pay anything either towards the principal or interest, and, hence defendant No. 1 renewed the said hand-note and executed another hand-note on the 22nd March, 1947 for a sum of Rs. 6,674/6/-. There was another renewal of the handnote by executing a handnote on the 17th February, 1950 for a sum of Rs. 7,551. Defendant No. 1 again renewed this handnote by executing another handnote on the 9th December, 1952, for a sum of Rs. 9,041/- including Rs. 215/- advanced in cash and, the last handnote was executed by him on the 16th October, 1955 for a sum of Rs. 10,591/- which is the basis of the suit. The plaintiff by an arrangement between himself and the defendant second party got the right to realise this debt, and, hence, he instituted the money suit on the 29th September, 1958, claiming Rs. 10,591/- as the principal amount due besides Rs. 1,855/- as interest from the 16th October, 1955 to the 25th September, 1958. The total claim thus was Rs. 12,446/-.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit, but there was one written statement on behalf of defendants 2 and 3, and the other one was on behalf of the minor defendants 4 and 5. It may be mentioned that defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of defendant No. 1, whereas defendant No. 4 is the son of defendant No. 2, and defendant No. 5 is the son of defendant No. 3. The defendants challenged the validity and genuineness of the handnote in suit and alleged that no consideration had passed. It is unnecessary to go in detail into the various defences taken by them except mentioning the one which is relevant for the purpose of this appeal as that alone has been pressed by learned Counsel for the appellants. That defence was that the plaintiff was not entitled to realise the compound interest in the present suit.