MADHO NARAIN Vs. NARHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the plaintiff to revise the decree of the learned District Judge, Alwar in appeal by which the decree of the court of first instance was set aside. The plaintiff applicant filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, Alwar for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 202/- against Bhuralal defendant, since dead, and Narhari opposite party on the ground that a sum of Rs. 300/- was deposited on behalf of Deepa with Bhuralal for the expenses of a revenue appeal out of which Rs. 100/- had been taken back by Deepa and a sum of Rs. 200/- remained deposited with Bhuralal. Afterwards Deepa wanted this sum back and the plaintiff, therefore, approached the defendant with a request to return the said sum. The amount was not returned and the opposite party Narhari promising to pay it back executed a bond in favour of the plaintiff. Sometime after, however, this bond was taken back by the opposite party and his post office saving account pass-book was deposited with the plaintiff and a withdrawal form was also handed over to him. The money, however, could not be withdrawn from the post office as the time on that day was over and the opposite party took away the withdrawal from leaving the pass book with plaintiff. The money was subsequently demanded but the defendants did not pay it back. Hence the plaintiff claimed recovery of Rs. 202/- from the two defendants Bhauralal and Narhari. Both the defendants filed separate written statements and it was denied that Rs. 300/- were deposited as alleged by the plaintiff or Rs. 200/- remained deposited after the payment of Rs. 100/ -. The opposite party who was defendant No. 2 pleaded that he never deposited his pass-book or handed over a withdrawal form to the plaintiff but averred that his pass-book was lost about which he made a report to the Superintendent Post Office, and got a duplicate pass book. He admitted the execution of a bond of Rs. 200/- in favour of the plaintiff but pleaded that it was because the plaintiff had promised to advance Rs. 200/- to the opposite party but when the plaintiff was unable to advance the money, the bond was taken back from him.

(2.) BEFORE the suit was decided by the first Court, the first defendant Bhuralal died and the case proceeded only against the opposite party defendant No. 2 in this case. The learned Munsif gave a decree for Rs. 200/-against the opposite party. The opposite party went in appeal to the Court of the District Judge, Alwar, who has, relying upon the evidence of one of the plaintiff's witnesses, Lalita Prasad, held that the money which is said to have been deposited with the defendants was for the purpose of payment of bribe in the revenue appeal and therefore, the consideration was unlawful. He has consequently dismissed the suit. He has not held in so many words that the money which was deposited, was in fact deposited, with the defendants or that if it was deposited it was paid as bribe in the revenue appeal.