SHIV RAJ Vs. RAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff filed a suit for Rs. 28,560/ -.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the defendant -respondant. Ramprasad, took a loan of Rs. 21,000/ - on 2 -6 -64 from the plaintiff appellant at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and executed a promissory note and a receipt in token of the receipt of the amount mentioned therein. The defendant -respondent had taken this loan from the plaintiff -appellant for purchasing a house from Shrimati Bhagwan Devi. The house was in fact purchased by Shri Ram Prasad from Shrimati Bhagwan Devi and a sale deed was duly registered on 3 -8 -64 and the amount as well as the cheque obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff was delivered to Shrimati Bhagwan Devi on that day. Since the defendant -respondent did not repay' the amount despite demands a telegraphic notice was sent to him on 24 -7 67 to pay the amount along with interest. It is noteworthy that no reply was sent to this telegraphic notice by the defendant -respondent. Eventually, the plaintiff -appellant filed the present suit on 4 -8 -67.

(3.) THE plaintiff appellant preferred a revision petition against the aforesaid order of abatement which was accepted by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur on 29 -10 -69 and the case was sent back for proceeding according to law. As a result of this order of remand, defendant -respondent filed the written statement on 12 -3 -70. He denied the execution of the promissory note as well as the receipt. He admitted the purchase of the house from Shrimati Bhagwan Devi on 3 -8 -64. Regarding the sale price he pleaded that he had arranged the same from other persons. He gave the details of the said arrangement in additional para No. 3 of the Written Statement, which reads as follows: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Thus, according to this plea he obtained Rs. 18000/ - from those persons and arranged the rest from his own pocket. He further pleaded that, as a matter of fact, he had advanced a sum of Rs. 12,000/ - to the plaintiff -appellant in cash in connection with the marriage of his son and had also brought goods worth Rs. 891.65 paisa for the plaintiff -appellant from the market and that had paid the shop keepers on behalf of the plaintiff -appellant from his own pocket. He further stated that when he demanded this amount from the plaintiff appellant and when common friends intervened the plaintiff appellant agreed to repay the amount and finally settled the account on 9 -7 -67 and appended his signatures on an account paper and also executed a pro -note and receipt for the repayment of the aforesaid amount. He admitted the receipt of the notice dated 24 -7 -67 sent by the plaintiff appellant but did not furnish any explanation as to why the notice was not replied.