BASTIMAL Vs. NATHMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Pali dated April 6, 1960, by which he upheld the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge of Pali dated December 23, 1958.

(2.) AS it is admitted that the fate of this case would depend on the question whether the plaintiffs' suit was within limitation, it would be enough to state the facts shortly. The firm of Pukhraj Gheesulal had two partners Nathmal and Pukhraj. It had some transactions with the plaintiffs, but fell into difficulties and ultimately, according to the plaintiffs' version, the accounts were settled for Rs. 4274/10/6 and each of the two partners Nathmal and Pukhraj executed a separate khata in favour of the plaintiffs for the half amount of Rs. 2137/5/3 on Shrawan Sudi 15, Smt. 2001, at village Benda, to which the plaintiffs belonged. The plaintiffs raised the present suit in the court of Civil Judge of Pali on June 24, 1955, alleging that defendant Nathmal, who executed the suit Khata in his capacity as the Karta of his joint Hindu family, paid him only Rs. 135/8/- on Paush Sudi 3, Smt. 2006, by making an endorsement in his own hand writing in the Khata, and that the only other payment which he made was of Rs. 2/-on ASadh Sudi 11, Smt. 2008, which also was endorsed by Nathmal in the Khata. Thus the plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to recover Rs. 1999/13/3 on account of principal and Rs. 600/2/9 for interest, making a total of Rs. 2600/ -. They clearly pleaded in paragraph 2 of the plaint that their samwat started from Mangsir Badi 1 and that as the payment of Rs. 2/- was made on July 3, 1952, which corresponded to ASar Sudi 11, Smt. 2008, the suit was within limitation.

(3.) AS no other point has been argued, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Pali dated April 6, are set aside and the plaintiffs' suit is decreed for Rs. 2600/. with pendente lite and future interest on the principal sum of Rs. 1999/13/9, at 4 per cent per annum. The appellants will be entitled to their costs throughout. The prayer for leave to appeal has no force and is rejected. .