JAIGOBIND PRASAD SAHU Vs. MTHIRIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Shahabad dated 28 April 1937, by which his suit has been dismissed which was instituted on 29 September 1934, to claim the money due on a handnote dated 2 October, 1931, now found to be executed by one Jagdish Prasad, the deceased husband of the respondent Mt. Hiria, a minor, who has been sued through and under the guardianship of Shyamlal Bhagat. The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether this handnote was for consideration. The circumstances which led up to the execution of the handnote in suit and the institution of the suit giving rise to the present appeal have been well ascertained and are simple.

(2.) It appears that the plaintiff who is the maternal uncle of the deceased Jagdish Prasad used to look after and manage the affairs and properties of Jagdish Prasad from the time of his minority. Jagdish Prasad died in June 1933 at the age of about 21 or 22. The plaintiff's case is that during the minority of Jagdish Prasad the plaintiff had to advance large sums of money from his own pocket in order to meet the litigation expenses and other necessary charges of the minor's estate chiefly because the income received from the estate of the minor was not sufficient to meet the necessary expenses owing to the litigation in which the estate was involved and for various other causes which it is not necessary to relate here. It was in this state of affairs that the plaintiff began to advance money from his pocket from the year 1924 onwards, and his case further is that when Jagdish Prasad attained majority on 20 March 1931 he explained the accounts to his ward who after going through all the account books with the help of his munibs and gomasthas accepted his liability to the extent of Rs. 8216-6-0 together with interest amounting to Rs. 921-4-3 which was due for and up to 1987 Sambat.

(3.) The plaintiff's case then is that in the year 1988 Sambat on 2 October, 1931 after giving credit to Jagdish Prasad for the amounts which were received from his estate in that year, and after deducting other items which were spent for Jagdish Prasad by the plaintiff, the balance of Rupees 8856-9-0 was struck. This balance was the result of the adjustment of accounts and was acknowledged by Jagdish across a one anna stamp in these words: "Made adjustment of accounts; Rs. 8856-9-0 was found due by me upto 2 October, 1931. (Sd.) Jagdish Prasad" (Ex. 1 in the case). On the same date Jagdish Prasad executed a handnote across four one anna stamps (Ex. 8 in the case) which recites that he "took a loan of Rs. 8856-9-0 from Jaigobind Prasad Sahu for expenses of suit" and promised to pay on demand the entire amount together with interest at the rate of 10 annas per cent, per mensem. The handnote bears the signature of Jagdish Prasad as well as his thumb impression. On the same date the plaintiff took a receipt from Jagdish Prasad (Ex. 9) by which Jagdish Prasad acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 8856-9-0 covered by the handnote dated 2 October, 1931. Although in the Court below on behalf of the defendants it was asserted that Jagdish Prasad was a minor on the date of these transactions of 2 October, 1931 and also that the handnote and receipt and acknowledgment were all forgeries but in view of the clear finding of the learned Subordinate Judge which has not been assailed before us on behalf of the respondents it must be assumed for the purpose of this appeal that the handnote in suit was duly executed by Jagdish Prasad who also signed the acknowledgment and the receipt already referred to.