ARJUNLAL DHANJI RATHOD Vs. DAYARAM PREMJI PADHIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2000. The case of the plaintiff was that he advanced a loan of Rs. 6250 to the defendant on 20-12-1959 and the latter promised to return the entire amount of loan in the month of June 1960. The said advance of loan was, however, not supported by any handnote, but the defendant in token of the receipt of the said sum issued four post-dated cheques on the same date (20-12-1959) in favour of the plaintiff. It was mutually agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the former would present those four cheques to his bankers for encashment in the month of June 1960 with the condition that in case of necessity the former could present the cheques on the dates mentioned in those four cheques. Those cheques were, however, dishonoured and then the plaintiff approached the defendant several times for the repayment of the loan, but the defendant did not pay any heed to it. Later on, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 4250 to the plaintiff in the month of November or December 1962 and promised to pay the balance of Rs. 2000 within one month. The said balance was never paid by the defendant, and hence the plaintiff instituted the money suit on 19-4-1963 for the relief indicated above.

(2.) The case of the defendant, on the other hand, was that he paid a sum of Rs. 4250 to the plaintiff on 29-11-1962 and a sum of Rs. 1500 on 3-3-1961 through cheque No. 143257 dated 28-2-1961 and a further sum of Rs. 500 in cash on 17-12-1962. After these payments nothing was due and the claim of the plaintiff was false. The other plea was that the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) The learned Munsif held that the entire claim of the plaintiff was satisfied and the plea of payment raised by the defendant was correct. He further held that the claim of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. In view of these findings he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit filed an appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plea of payment in respect of the sum of Rs. 1500 was correct but the other plea in respect of Rs. 500 was not correct. In view of that conclusion he allowed the appeal in part and decreed the suit of the plaintiff in respect of Rs 500, with corresponding cost and pleader's fee at the minimum contested scale. Being aggrieved by this decree the defendant has filed this second appeal.