LAWS(RAJ)-1958-4-13

MOHANLAL Vs. PRAKASH CHANDER

Decided On April 03, 1958
MOHANLAL Appellant
V/S
PRAKASH CHANDER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS a is second appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of money on the basis of a mortgage bond.

(2.) THE respondent, who is not present, instituted a suit against Mohanlal and his son Shri Bhagwan appellant on the allegations that the defendants were the owners of 300 bighas of land as Barhdars, and were on friendly terms with the plaintiff. Mohanlal appellant wanted a loan in connection with the marriage of his daughter, and obtained Rs. 1035/- in various amounts on various dates. It was alleged that on the 1st of July, 1939, a document of loan of Rs. 1000/- after adjusting accounts was executed by Mohan Lal with agreement to pay interest at Re. 1/- p. m. , and as security for the loan the 300 bighas of land was handed over to the plaintiff, and a Navisht was obtained from the cultivators in favour of the plaintiff. It was alleged that thereafter the defendants told the plaintiff that if the latter collected the rents, the former would be disgraced, and they agreed that they may be allowed to collect the rent themselves, and they will pay over the same to the plaintiff. It was alleged that upto Smt. 2002 (later said to be Pos Sudi 15 Smt. 2002) previous accounts were made up, and the defendants agreed to accept their liability on the mortgage bond at Rs. 666/8/ -. It was then alleged that the Bahi in which the acknowledgment was made was handed over by the plaintiff to Babu Ghanshyam Chandra Vakil, who tried to have the dispute amicably settled, but the Bahi was taken away by Mohanlal, and thereafter a false notice was given to the plaintiff that the said defendant Mohanlal was a creditor of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 409/ -. THE plaintiff stated that he was, therefore, compelled to file a suit for the recovery of Rs. 666/8/-principal and Rs. 193/12/- interest at 1% p. m. , the total claim being Rs. 860/4/ -. THE prayer was for grant of a personal decree against the defendants, and further for a charge being kept on the income of the 300 bighas of land.