HARJI Vs. GANPATLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-respondent-Ganpatlal has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3400/- against Mana son of Goma, Harji son of Kesa and Achla son of Nanda, all resident of Siola, Tehsil Sojat, district Pali, in the court of Munsiff, Sojat, on 20. 01. 1976. THE suit was based on a promissory note Ex. 1, executed by all the three persons in favour of the plaintiff. THE promissory note specifically stated that the liability to payment of loan was joint and several,as is apparent from the following terms in the promissory-note, which reads as under : *******

(2.) IN the written statement, filed on behalf of defendants, the allegations in the plaint were denied. It was pleaded that the promissory note and receipt in lieu of amount received by the defendants has not been executed by the defendants and it was also pleaded that the pro-note was without consideration. A plea was also taken that the plaintiff is carrying on business of money-lending but he does not hold a valid licence under the Rajasthan Money-Lender's Act and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable.

(3.) SO far as the first question is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff has exercised his option to enforce the liability under the promissory note jointly by filing the joint suit and the trial court has passed a joint decree. The decree was indivisible and inseparable. The first appellate court ought to have dismissed the suit in toto. He relied on principles enunciated in decisions delivered in State of Punjab vs. Nathuram (2), Union of India vs. Shree Ram Bohra and others (3) and in State of Punjab vs. Kabul Singh and others