RAM LAL Vs. SAIYID MEHDI HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit in which this appeal is brought was instituted by the Appellant, Ram Lal, as Plaintiff, to recover moneys alleged to have been advanced by him to the first Respondent, Saiyid Mehdi Husain, as agent for a lady who has died during the progress of the litigation, and who is now represented by the last two Respondents. A sum of about Rs. 30,000 was claimed as due on a bond dated the 13th and registered on the 19th of September, 1883. A further sum of about Rs. 9000 was claimed having been advanced in various amounts between the 20th of September, 1883, and the 25th of December in that year.

(2.) THE lower Court allowed the whole amount claimed as due on the bond. The Judicial Commissioner disallowed Rs. 4000. That disallowance forms one of the grounds of appeal.

(3.) IT was contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the case as regards the Rs. 9000 does not fall within the ordinary rule applicable to two concurrent findings of fact, because the lower Court had not an opportunity of considering, and did not consider, the evidence as to the genuineness of the receipt of the 26th of December, 1883. Their Lordships are not prepared to hold, either in this particular case or as a general rule that the mere fact that a part of the evidence in the suit has not been considered by the lower Court prevents the ordinary rule from applying when both Courts have arrived at the same result. In the present case, however, as the whole of the evidence has been brought to their Lordships' notice, they think it right to add, that in their opinion the Judicial Commissioner could not have come to any other conclusion.