POONAM CHAND Vs. DHINGAR MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil regular second appeal by the plaintiffs Poonamchand and others in a suit for money which was partly decreed by the trial court but on appeal wholly dismissed by the learned District Judge, Balotra.

(2.) THE material facts leading up to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. THE plaintiffs appellants were assignees from respondents Nos. 2 and 3 Asaram and Sonraj who constituted a joint family firm carrying on business as commission agents in the sale and purchase of bullion at Balotra in the name and style of Sonraj Bhanwarlal. THE case of the plaintiffs was that defendant respondent No. 1 Dhingarmal carried on certain dealings in the sale and purchase of bullion under the commission agency of the firm Sonraj Bhanwarlal from Chait Sudi 14, S 2002 to Baisakh Sudi 10 Smt. 2003 and as a result thereof sustained losses to the tune of Rs. 3511/12/6 including commission and other incidental charges, which were suffered by the firm Sonraj Bhanwarlal on behalf of Dhingarmal. On Falgun Vadi 13 S. 2005, the losses payable by Dhingarmal stood at Rs. 3931/4/6 including Rs. 3511/12/6 principal and Rs. 410/8/- as interest. This debt was assigned by Sonraj Bhawarlal to the plaintiffs on the date last mentioned, that is, on Falgun Vadi 13 S. 2005. It is important to note that it was also alleged by the plaintiffs in paragraph nine of their plaint that in the month of Magh of S. 2004, the debt owing by Dhingarmal to the firm Sonraj Bhanwarlal was settled at a sum of Rs. 2701/-through the mediation of one Nenmal, son of Chhogalal of Jasol. Dhingarmal had agreed to pay the aforesaid amount in cash by Chait Sudi 15, S. 2004, and, therefore, it was alleged that Nenmal had reduced the amount of the debt, and he had also arranged that Asaram on behalf of the firm Sonraj Bhanwarlal should give a letter to defendant Dhingarmal saying that he would accept Rs. 2701/- in final settlement of his account with defendant Dhingarmal and this letter Ex. A was handed over to Nenmal. THE contention of the plaintiffs, however, was that Dhingarmal did not keep up his promise, and, therefore, he was liable to pay the entire amount on the basis of the original transactions. As already stated, the assignment in favour of the plaintiffs came to be made by Asaram and Sonraj on Falgun Vadi 13 S. 2005. Consequently, the plaintiffs prayed for a decree for Rs. 3931/4/6 including principal and interest against defendant respondent Dhingarmal, and, alternatively, they also prayed for a decree against the assignors.