LAWS(RAJ)-1959-12-17

MUNICIPAL COMMITTEEKISHANGARH Vs. MAHARAJA KISHANGARH MILLS LTD

Decided On December 11, 1959
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KISHANGARH Appellant
V/S
MAHARAJA KISHANGARH MILLS LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a special appeal against the judgment and decree of Bhandari J, sitting single, confirming in second appeal the decision of the District Judge, Jaipur. Leave to appeal has been granted by the learned Judge.

(2.) The appeal relates to a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, The Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd., for recovery of Rs. 3539/7/-from the defendant Municipal Committee, which is the appellant here. The plaintiff alleged that the Municipal Committee Madanganj had borrowed on 9-7-1947 a sum of Rs, 3,000/-and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, after the loan had been duly sanctioned by the Mahkama Khas of the then Kishangarh State. Later the Municipal Committee Madanganj merged in the Municipal Committee Kishangarh and plaintiff averred that, by virtue of the merger, the defendant became liable to pay the aforesaid amount with interest. The defendant resisted the claim and its liability to pay the amount; but admitted that in any case the plaintiff could not recover more than Rs. 2,000/ which was the actual amount paid. By a subsequent amendment in the written statement the defendant further pleaded that the contract made on behalf of the Municipal Committee Madanganj was not executed and signed in conformity with the provisions of section 15 of the Kishangarh Municipalities Act (Act IV of 1943--hereinafter called the Act) and as such was not binding on the Municipal Committee Madanganj or on the defendant either. This defence found favour with the trial court which entirely dismissed the plaintiffs suit; but on appeal the learned District Judge, Jaipur decreed the claim for Rs. 2,000/- with interest Rs. 160/14, in all Rs. 2160/14. The decree has been confirmed by Bhandari J. and hence this appeal.

(3.) The only point which has been canvassed before us, as it was before the learned Judge, is that the contract for loan not being in conformity with section 15 of the Act, is not binding on the defendant. The section requires: