REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAMDAYAL Appellant

V/S

MAJI DEVDIJI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RAI CHARAN V. BISWANATH [REFERRED TO]
NURI MIAN V. AMBICA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAMA CHANDRA V. MAHARAJA OF JEYPORE [REFERRED TO]
SUBBARAYA CHETTY V. NACHIAR AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
KANSHI RAM V. JAIMAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MT.GHULAM FATIMA V. RAHMAN [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN V. RAMJI [REFERRED TO]
FATEH MAHOMMED V. GANGA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KHAN CHAND DULARAM V. DAYARAM AMRITLAL [REFERRED TO]
BAL KRISHNA V. DEB SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RANGAYYA NAIDU V. BASANA SIMON [REFERRED TO]
LABHU RAM V. CHARNU FAUJU [REFERRED TO]
BUTCHIRAJU V. SEETHARAMAYYA [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAJI VINAYAK V. MOTILAL MAGANDAS [REFERRED TO]
HARJAS MAL V. BHAGAT RAM [REFERRED TO]
DERA SADH V. BASTI RAM [REFERRED TO]
KIMATRAI V. MANGHARAM [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH SARAN V. MUJTABA HUSAIN [REFERRED TO]
THIMMAYYA V. SIDDAPPA [REFERRED TO]
MEGHAJI V. ANANT PANDURANG [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL VS. BADKULAL [REFERRED TO]
KANRAJ VS. VIJAI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HASTI MAL VS. SHANKER DAN [REFERRED TO]
RATANLAL VS. DAUDAS [REFERRED TO]
DOORGA PROSAD CHAMARIA VS. SECRETARY OF STATE [REFERRED TO]
JOTI BHUSHAN GUPTA VS. BNSARKAR THROUGH SNMITTRA, MANAGER [REFERRED TO]
GHULAM MURTAZA VS. MTFASIUNNISSA BIBI [REFERRED TO]
SORNAMMAL VS. THANGAVELU MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
MANDLI PRASAD RAMCHARANLAL VS. RAMCHARANLAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal by defendant Ramdayal in a suit for recovery of money.

(2.) The plaintiff's case was that there were money dealings between him and the defendant, and the latter went into accounts and struck a balance of Rs. 3000/-in plaintiff's favour oh Posh Sudi 9, Smt. 2005 in his Khata Bahi and signed the entry. Thereafter, on Posh Sudi 13, Smt. 2005, the defendant took a further loan of Rs. 7000/- from the plaintiff in lieu of which also he signed an entry in the plaintiff's Khata bahi. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant had agreed to give interest at the rate of 9 per cent, per annum. As the defendant had paid nothing towards the debt, the plaintiff instituted his suit/on 13-6-1949, for the recovery of Rs 10,000/principle and Rs. 392/- by way of interest, total Rs. 10,392/-.

(3.) The defendant admitted having executed the Khatas relied on by the plaintiff but resisted the suit on the ground that he had executed two Mudatti Hundies for the sum of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the plaintiff on Baisakh Sudi 14, Smt. 2006, and thereby completely discharged the debt due from him to the plaintiff. The defendant also contended that as the old contract between the parties had been novated, the plaintiff's suit on the basis of the Khata was not maintainable. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiffs Khata was inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp. In his replication, the plaintiff stated that when the defendant was pressed to repay the loan, he had executed two Mudatti Hundies in plaintiff's favour; one for a sum of Rs. 5000/- payable 30 days after Baisakh Sudi 14, Smt. 2006 and another also for Rs. 5000/- but payable 46 days after Baisakh Sudi 14. The plaintiff produced the original Hon-dies and further stated that nothing had been paid in discharge thereof. The plaintiff also stated that the Khata did bear the necessary stamp and was, therefore, admissible in evidence.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAMDAYAL Vs. MAJI DEVDIJI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address