CHAMPALAL Vs. SALIGRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil regular first appeal by the defendant Champalal from a judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Merta, dated the 30th April, 1955, in a suit for money.

(2.) The plaintiff's case briefly put, was that. on the 25th January, 1947, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/-from the former and had executed a receipt Ex. 1 for it on the same date and that he had also executed a pro-misssory note on that very date in favour of the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the defendant had agreed to pay interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the principal sum aforesaid. It was further alleged that the defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 2750/-as interest for the period from the 25th January 1947 to the 25th August 1951, which fact had been acknowledged by him in his letter dated the 20th September, 1931, Ex. 7. The case of the plaintiff further was that in the meantime he had many a time pressed the defendant to repay the loan as a result of which the latter sent the plaintiff a number of letters, which are Exs. 2 to 6, and are respectively dated as the 13th January, 1948, 19th October, 1949, 5th December, 1949, 30th January, 1950, and 16th September, 1950, wherein he begged for extension of time to repay the loan owing to straightened circumstances. Eventually, the plaintiff instituted the present suit on the 15th March, 1954. in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Merta, for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/-as principal and Rs. 1550/- as interest upto the date of suit, the total being Rs. 11,550/-The plaintiff claimed that the suit was within limitation on account of the acknowledgments of the debt contained in the various letters referred to above.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit. He flatly denied that he had ever borrowed the sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff or had executed a receipt for it or had executed a promissory note in lieu of that. No question, therefore, arose of agreeing to pay any interest. He further contended that the promissory note was inadmissible in evidence, being improperly stamped. Pleas of limitation and jurisdiction were also raised, and it was suggested that the plaintiff had manufactured this false claim against the defendant as there was bad blood between them on account of some election, the particulars of which were not mentioned in the written statement.