HURRICHURN BOSE Vs. MONINDRA NATH GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case an action was brought by the Appellant against the Respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,998. The Respondent appears, at the time that the first of the transactions hereinafter mentioned occurred between him and the Appellant, to have been a young man under age and of a dissipated and rather lawless character. Arriving in Calcutta, he obtained an introduction to the Appellant for the purpose of obtaining a loan of money from him, and made a promissory note, bearing date the 6th of January, 1882, by which he promised on demand to pay to a payee, not the Appellant, but a nominee of the Appellant, the sum of Rs. 5000, with interest at 36 per cent. That note was part of a larger transaction, by which it was intended that he was to get a loan of Rs. 15,000, and to secure it by a mortgage. On the same day he entered into an agreement respecting that mortgage; but the mortgage was never executed, and the transaction fell through, except as regards the promissory note above referred to.

(2.) A considerable controversy arose before the District Judge and before the High Court as to what amount of money actually passed into the hands of the Respondent in exchange for the note. Both the Courts have concurrently found that only Rs. 1500 reached the hands of the Respondent, and that the Respondent was a minor at the time when the note was executed, and their Lordships consider that the ordinary rule as to concurrent findings applies, so that the case must be approached with those as facts assumed.

(3.) THE Appellant stated, as their Lordships understand, that there were six persons present on the occasion of the execution of the note: himself, two witnesses to the note, Jagat Narain and Bepin Behari, the Mukhtar, Russick, and another person, who it has been proved is dead. Four of these persons have been examined, namely, the Appellant, Jagat Narain, Bepin Behari, and the Respondent. The Mukhtar was not called, the Appellant's explanation for not calling him being that he did not know who he was; that he knew nothing about him, and that he could not find him. Russick he knew extremely well, seeing that he was the person who introduced the transaction to him in the month of January, 1882; he said that he had searched for Russick, but had been unable to find him. Therefore, at the outset, there is the observation that the two persons who purported to have acted for the Respondent in the making out of the account on the day before the note was signed are not produced, and the Appellant relies upon his own evidence and that of his two witnesses. These three persons swear that they saw Monindra sign the note. He swears he did not sign it. There is a flat contradiction between them. Their Lordships would not be disposed to pay too much attention to the mere denial of the Respondent, because a portion of his evidence was read in which he showed a facility for telling a lie upon any subject when it was convenient to him to do so. The two witnesses are stated to be persons to some extent dependent upon the Appellant, and whom he was likely to have influence over. He himself, of course, has a large interest in the matter.