RAM RICHPAL Vs. BIKANER STORES SUPPLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred by Ramrichapal, defendant No. 2 against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Bikaner, dated July 21, 1959. The dispute is like this.

(2.) RAMRICHPAL is the son of the other defendant Bhaironsingh. They owned ancestral immovable property which was situated in an important locality in the city of Bikaner. The Bikaner Stores Supply and Trading Company, which was a partnership firm and of which Rawatram was one of the partners, advanced a loan of Rs. 5000/- to Bhaironsingh on January 10, 1952 under a mortgage. The mortgagee was shown to be Rawatram and it was agreed that the mortgage money would be repayable at the stipulated rate of interest. The loan was advanced for completing the construction of the above mentioned property which, it appears, was a 'kacha' structure and for the reconstruction of which Bhaironsingh took loans from time to time, the suit loan being the third loan. Bhaironsingh did not repay the loan and so the present suit was instituted on January 18, 1955, for the recovery of Rs. 5000/- on account of principal and Rs. 1832/- by way of interest, making a total of Rs. 6832/ -. Both the Bikaner Stores Supply and Trading Company as well as Rawatram were joined as plaintiffs in the suit and it was clarified in paragraph 2 of the plaint that even though Rawatram was a partner of the firm, which carried on the business of money lending in addition to its other business, the real mortgagee was the Company and that the mortgage deed was executed in favour of Rawatram by way of a formality and that he had been impleaded as a plaintiff for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary objections. The suit was initially instituted against the original mortgagor Bhaironsingh, but his son RAMRICHPAL, the present appellant, was impleaded as the other defendant, at his own request. He was a minor and his mother was therefore appointed to be his guardian ad litem. It may also be mentioned that the plaintiffs took the plea that the loan had been advanced for the benefit of the joint family of the defendants.