MOHANLAL Vs. MEGHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Churu, in a suit for recovery of money.

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent Megharam filed a suit against the appellant Mohanlal and his younger brother Ramchander, respondent No. 2, for recovery of Rs. 10,000/ - on the bass of a promissory note dated 18.7.66. It was alleged in the plaintiff that defendants Mohanlal and Ramchander are real brothers and they carried on business jointly in the name and style of Mohanlal Ramchander at Derasar. Defendant Ramehar oder on 18. 7. 66 took a loan of Rs. 10,000/ - from the plaintiff on behalf of both the defendants and executed a promissory note and also a receipt which are on the record as Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 respectively. The two defendants Mohanlal and Ramchander filed separate written statements. Both of then denied that they lived jointly. Ramchander admitted having executed the pronote and the receipt but pleaded repayment Mohanlal denied his liability to the suit amount. It was also pleaded that the Court of Additional District Judae, Churu, had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as the defendents resided at Bikaner. It was also pleaded that the promissory note was not stamped with proper stamps. The learned Additional District Judge after framing proper issues and recording evidence of the parties, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit against both the defendants. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant Mohanlal has preferred this appeal against plaintiff Megharam and impleaded his younger brother Ramchander as co -respondent.

(3.) IN view of the above, the management of the joint Hindu family business in the present case was not only in the hands of the manager, namely, Mohan Lal, but also in the hands of Ram ChandeRule The act of Ram Chander in taking the loan from the plaintiff was certainly ratified by Mohan Lal who subsequently issued the cheque for the amount of Rs. 4111/ - In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned trial court committed any error in holding Mohan Lal liable for the suit debt.