SHIVRAJ Vs. BHOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs, who are the appellants in this second appeal, raised their suit for the recovery of Rs. 2000/- on the basis of 'khata' Ex. 1 alleging that it was executed in their favour by the defendant on Mangsir Sudi 4, Svt. 2008, corresponding to December 2, 1951, after setting the account. According to the plaintiffs, if was provided in the 'khata' that 201 maunds of grain would be delivered by the defendant by Jeth Sudi 15, Svt. 2009 i. e. by June 8, 1952. It was claimed that the defendant delivered one maund of grain on Jeth Sudi 12, Svt. 2012 (June 2, 1955) and so the suit was filed on June 30, 1958, for the recovery of Rs. 2000/- after giving up the remaining claim. As the courts were closed during the summer vacation, the plaintiffs pleaded that the suit was within limitation on account of the part payment dated June 2, 1955. THE defendant denied the execution of the 'khata' and the alleged part payment. He also took the plea that the 'khata was without consideration. Issues were framed on October 16, 1958 on questions relating to the execution of the 'khata', the consideration, the alleged part payment, the rate of the grain and some other minor points of controversy. THE evidence of the parties was recorded on these issues. THE defendant then moved an application for leave to amend the written statement to raise the plea that the 'khata' had been altered in material particulars. THE application was allowed and an issue was framed on August 24, 1950, whether material alterations had been made in the 'khata'. THEreafter the case proceeded further and the Munsiff of Jaitaran, who tried the suit, reached the conclusion that the 'khata' had Deen executed by the defendant with consideration and that the defendant made part payment of the loan by delivering one maund of grain on Jeth Sudi 12, S. 2012, as claimed by the plaintiffs. THE other material finding of the Munsiff was that the Khata had been materially altered after its execution, to bring the suit within limitation, and he therefore dismissed it. On appeal, the learned Civil Judge of Sojat also held that the 'khata' had been materially altered and he therefore main-tained the trial court's decree by his judgment dated May 7, 1960. It is in these circumstances that the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.

(2.) THERE is: no controversy before me about the correctness of the findings regarding the execution of the 'khata' by the defendant, the consideration and the part payment of June 2, 1955. THERE is also no controversy about the price of the grain, or the quantum of the plaintiffs' claim. The only dispute is whether the 'khata' was materially altered without the knowledge or consent of the defendant, and it is admitted that the fate of the appeal will depend on a decision of this point alone.

(3.) 2009 jk tsb lqn 15 rkbz nslh** occurred after the words