CHANDRA BHAN AND OTHERS Vs. MISRIMAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for money.

(2.) THE defendants respondents are the sons of one Chunnilal who had dealings with the plaintiffs. Chunnilal went into accounts with the plaintiffs on 17 -4 -1950, struck a balance entry and executed a 'Khata' in their favour. As the defendants failed to pay the money due on the Khata, the plaintiffs brought this suit against Misrimal and Pukhraj, sons of Chunnilal, in the first instance. These defendants resisted the suit on the plea 'inter alia' that there were two other sons of Chunnilal namely, Parasmal and Heerachand who were necessary parties to the suit, and that it was not maintainable in their absence.

(3.) ANOTHER case relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents is - 'Hazara Singh v. Naranjan Singh', : AIR 1929 Lah 783 (C). In that case & mortgagee filed a suit for recovery of mortgage money against four out of five sons of the deceased mortgagor for his 2/3rds share of the entire mortgage (the l/3rd share having already been redeemed). The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for 4/5ths of 2/3rds share of the mortgage money, and this decree was upheld by the High Court. It is true that in this case the plaintiff was not awarded a decree for the amount of the mortgage money debitable to the 5th -son, but at the same time the plaintiff's suit was not thrown out on the ground that that son was not made a party to the suit. This authority, in my opinion, affords no help to the respondents and seems to me to go against them.