RAM NARAIN Vs. LT COL HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Ganganagar dated 19th March, 1958 who has set aside the money decree, of the trial Court against one of the defendants.

(2.) A Joint Hindu family firm of the name and style of Asaram Kedarmal instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Suratgarh for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,400/8/6 as principal and Rs. 2,657/7/6 as interest against Harisingh Sikh and Lt. Col. Harisingh To avoid confusion I shall be referring in this judgment one as harisingh and the other as the Lt. Col. The plaintiff started money dealings with harisingh who was a tenant of the Lt. Col. The latter undertook the responsibility of paying if any of the dues of Harisingh remained unpaid. The transactions between the plaintiff and Harisingh were settled and cleared off and Harisingh executed an entry in the account book of the plaintiff for having received a sum of rs. 7500/- in cash on 18-12-1953. The Lt. Col. signed this entry stating that he was responsible for the repayment of this amount of money. Other items consisting of the sum of Rs. 175/- and Rs. 21/- which remained due on the basis of the previous accounts together with another sum of Rs. 3/- were also claimed. A credit was given in this Khata for Rs. 1298/7/6 from some separate account of the It. Col. and thus the total claim made by the plaintiff came to Rs. 9058/inclusive of interest at the rate of Rs. 1/4/- per cent per mensem.

(3.) HARISHIGH admitted the existence of the previous accounts between him and the plaintiff and pleaded that it was settled and cleared. He denied having executed the entry in the sum of Rs. 7500/- and contended that he had never borrowed this amount. The claim for interest was also disputed. He pleaded that he used to deliver his entire agricultural produce to the plaintiff's firm and in fact he had paid the plaintiff's dues five times over. Some other legal pleas were also raised which are no longer in controversy and need not be mentioned.