ONKARMAL Vs. BANWARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendants Onkarmal and Nagarmal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jhunjhunu dated the 20th February, 1956, reversing the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu dated the 8th December, 1954 by which he had dismissed the suit, and partially decreed it. The plaintiffs have also filed a cross-objection. I propose to dispose of both these matters by a single judgment.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS Banarsilal and Banwarilal are brothers, and the former having died during the pendency of this appeal has been substituted by his widow and his other heirs who being minors are represented by the said widow.

(3.) THE parties, apart from defendant No. 1 Jagannath Singh, were residents in the town of jasrapur. The plaintiffs have described themselves in the plaint as respectable businessmen belonging to a well-to-do family. Defendant No. 1 jagannath Singh was at the time of the happening of the events, out of which this litigation arises, a sub-inspector of police in charge of the Khetri Police station within the jurisdiction of which the town of Jasrapur was situate. It so happened that Ramawatar, a son of the defendant Onkarmal, committed a theft of some ornaments and cash belonging to his father. The suspicions of Onkarmal fell on the plaintiff Banarsilal, and the former thought that his son Ramawatar had made over the stolen property to the said Banarsilal. It is alleged that, at the instance of onkarmal and his son Nagarmal, defendant Jagannath Singh went to Jasrapur on the 31st May, 1952, and again at their instance, he put the plaintiff Banarsilal under wrongful confinement or illegal detention for about forty-eight hours at the police outpost at Jasrapur and he did so without any lawful excuse or authority, and further abused, beat and humiliated the plaintiff Banarsilal. Thereupon, banwarilal, the elder brother of Banarsilal, approached the Sub Inspector and requested the latter to release his brother as he was entirely innocent. The Sub inspector, however, also, abused Banwarilal and maltreated him and hurled out a threat that he would take the plaintiff Banarsilal handcuffed all the way from jasrapur to Khetri unless a sum of Rs. 300/-was paid to the Sub Inspector himself and another sum of Rs. 1100/- paid to defendants Onkarmal and Nagarmal. The case of the plaintiffs is that finding no other way of saving the situation and to save Banarsilal and himself from further humiliation and disgrace Banwarilal paid a sum of Rs. 861/- out of which Rs. 150/-were kept by the Sub Inspector and Rs. 711/- were paid to the defendants and thus the plaintiff Banarsilal was released on the morning of the 2nd June, 1952. It was further alleged that accordingly a letter ex. P. 1 was executed by the defendants Onkarmal and Nagarmal in favour of the plaintiffs, and a reciprocal letter Ex. P. 2 was executed by the plaintiff Banwarilal in favour of these defendants. Both these letters bear the same date, namely, Jeth sudi 8 Smt. 2009 (corresponding to the 1st June, 1952) and were written simultaneously. The gist of these writings is that Ramawatar (son of Onkarmal) had been suspected of having given certain valuables belonging to these defendants to the plaintiff Banarsilal, whereupon the defendants had made a report to the police and the Kotwal (meaning thereby the Sub-Inspector Jagannath Singh) had come to investigate the matter as a result of which a sum of: Rs. 711/- had been given by banwarilal and Banarsilal and taken by Onkarmal and Nagannal. The money was paid and received in the presence of Murlidhar, Jhabarmal. Narainram and satyanarain. The grievance of the plaintiffs was that the aforesaid money had been taken by the defendants by coercion and undue influence, and, therefore, they were entitled to get the same back from the defendants. The plaintiffs further claimed damages for the wrongful confinement of the plaintiff Banarsilal and the ill-treatment accorded to the other plaintiff Banwarilal which had subjected them to disgrace, humiliation, bodily discomfort and mental suffering and the total amount claimed in this connection was a sum of Rs. 2039/-, the particulars of which were given as follows: