SOBHALAL Vs. BAGHSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiffs Sobhalal and Ridhkaran against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, dated 28th November, 1951, in a suit for money.

(2.) THE plaintiffs' case was that they had money dealings with Chunda-watji, mother of the present respondent, and that on 9th August, 1938, accounts were gone into and a sum of Rs. 934/- in Kaldar was acknowledged to be due by her in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further alleged that on the same day, Chundawatji executed a new document wherein she converted the amount due into Chittori coin at the rate of 160 Chittori for 100 Kaldars and agreed that the sum of Rs. 1525/- thus arrived at would be paid by her by annual instalments of Rs. 340/- each, and further agreed to pay rate of 12 annas, per cent, per mensem, in case such instalments Were not paid in time. As the lady did not pay anything towards her debt, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit in the court of the Munsiff Saharda, on 9th November, 1941. THE plaintiffs prayed for a decree for Rs. 1525/- as principal and Rs. 193'- by way of interest making a total of Rs. 1718/- in Chittori coin with pending and future interest. THE defendant Chundawatji contended the suit on all conceivable grounds. She denied her signatures on the document. She also stated that the plaintiffs had not explained the accounts to her and that she was a Pardanashin lady. She further contended that as the original liability was in Kaldar the plaintiffs cannot be granted a decree in Chittori coin. It appears that the suit was decreed ex parte against the defendantion the 22nd August, 1942, for a sum of Rs. 1718/- with costs; but on an application by the defendant Chundawatji, the ex-parte decree was set aside. As Chundawatji died during the pendency of the trial, her son Baghsingh was brought on record as her legal representative. THE trial court held that the execution of Ex. P-l by Chundawatji was proved. In arriving at this finding, the trial court mainly relied on the evidence of the Kamdar of Thikana Mahendragarh, who was the scribe of the suit document, who had stated that had written it at the instance of Chundawatji and that she had signed it, and certain other witnesses into whose evidence it is not necessary to enter for the purposes on this appeal. THE finding of the trial court as regards Chundawatji being a Pardanashin lady is that she kept very light Parda and was accessible to her advisers, and therefore, there was no reason to hold that she had been overreached in any manner. As regards the contention that the plaintiffs were not entitled to bring their suit for recovery of the money alleged to be outstanding against her in Chittori coin the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to bring the suit in Chittori coin and to obtain a decree likewise as the transaction which was the basis of the suit was made in Chittori currency four years before the suit was filed. THE trial court, therefore, decreed the plaintiff's suit against the present respondent for a sum of Rs. 1718/- with costs, and gave a direction that the decree would be executed against the estate of Chundawatji in the hands of the respondent. THE defendant preferred an appeal from the above decree to the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, who upheld the findings of the trial court on all findings of fact. That court, however, varied the decree of the trial court and held that as the amount of Rs. 1525/- for which Ex. P-l had been executed by Chundawatji was arrived at by commutation of the original debt of Rs. 934/- in Kaldar the plaintiffs were entitled to sue and get a decree in Kaldar only. It therefore, modified the decree of the trial court and awarded a decree for a sum of Rs. 1074/- in favour of the plaintiffs. Both parties were left to bear their own costs in that court, but proportionate costs of the trial court were allowed to the plaintiffs. THE plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge.