RAMKISHEN RAMNARAIN AGARWAL Vs. VALLABH DASS CHUNNILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant Ramkishen against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Jaipur dated 9-2-1952. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was filed by Respondent Balabhdas and others for the recovery of Rs. 274/- from the defendant appellant. Out of this amount Rs. 230/- were claimed as principal and the remaining as interest and cost of notice. It was alleged that the plaintiff was a Kachha Ahrtiya and the defendant carried on certain transactions in yarn and gold Mohars in the Ahrat of the plaintiff. It was alleged that five bales of yarn were purchased and sold in the Ahrat of the plaintiff and that there was a profit of Rs. 143/12/- to the defendant on that account. It was further alleged that 100 gold Mohars were purchased and sold by the defendant in the plaintiff's Ahrat as detailed below : 14-11-43 25 gold Mohars purchased74/8/- per Mohar. at the rate of Rs. 16-11-43 25 gold Mohars purchased74/9/- per Mohar. at the rate of Rs. 9-12-43 50 gold Mohars purchased71/10/- per Mohar. at the rate of Rs. 9-12-43 50 gold Mohars sold at the rmohar. ate of Rs. 68/- per it was alleged that crediting the profit and the amounts received as sale proceeds of 100 gold Mohars a sum of Rs. 230/- remained due to the plaintiff from the defendant which was payable together with interest at the rate of -/10/- P. M. as agreed upon and the cost of notice.

(2.) THE defendant denied that he had entered into any transaction in the Kachha arat of the plaintiff. The court of first instance by its judgment dated 25-4-1950 found against the plaintiff and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the learned additional District Judge, Jaipur came to the contrary conclusion. He held that the defendant had entered into the transaction given in the plaint in the Kachha Arat of the plaintiff and that the defendant was liable for Rs. 230/- principal together with interest and cost of notice. He consequently allowed the appeal and gave a decree to the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 274/- and future interest at 4 per cent P. A. from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of recovery. The defendant has come in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) THE plaintiff respondent could not be personally served and so there was a substituted service ordered against him which has been done. He has not appeared and the appeal proceeds ex parte.