HANUTRAM Vs. KUMBHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by an unsuccessful plaintiff Hanutaram whose suit for recovery of Rs. 3613/- was decreed by the trial court to the extent of Rs. 3000/- only but was dismissed by the District Judge, Bikaner on appeal by the defendants.

(2.) THE plaintiff Hanutram's case is that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 Kanoram and Sukharam respectively took him to village Kansesar with a view to bring about the engagement of his daughter Imali with Taruram brother of defendant No 2 Kumbharam, but since he did not like the boy on account of the disparity of age between him and his daughter he refused to betroth his daughter with Tara Ram It is alleged by the plaintiff that inspite of his refusal, the defendant Nos. 2 and 5 gave out that Imali had been betrothed to Taruram and ultimately all the three defendants accornpained by some more persons came to his village and forced him to pay Rs. 3000/- to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Kumbha Ram and Kanaram on the pain of taking away his daughter Imali and forcibly marrying her to Taru Ram if he did not comply with their demand. THE plaintiff goes on to state that due to fear of his daughter being forcibly taken away for marriage with Taru Ram he paid Rs. 3000/- to the defendants No. 1 and 2. It appears there was also some criminal litigation between the parties but since Hanutaram was not successful to get back Rs. 3000/- alleged to have been paid by him to the defendants Nos. l & 2 under coercion, he filed the present suit on 27-9-61 in the Court of Civil Judge, Ratangarh for recovery of Rs. 3000/- along with interest Rs. 615/-, total Rs. 36i5 -.

(3.) IN T. S. R. B. Cooperative Society vs. S. Sundaram (11) after an elaborate discussion of the case law bearing on the subject the learned Judge observed as follows - "of the two views that can be taken on the interpretation of the Article one is that the Article should be strictly construed or in other words that the expression 'money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use' should be given its literal meaning, and the other is that the expression should be understood in the sense in which it is used in English Common Law as a cause of action.