CHAMPA LAL Vs. SHAM SUNDAR MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A perfumery business was carried on by one Radha Kishen. The business as well as other property moveable and immoveable passed on his death to his two sons Bindesri Pershad and Nandan Pershad and to Sham Sundar and Ram Behari, two sons oi Bindesri Pershad. Nandan Pershad relinquished all his right in the business and property and for some years the business was carried on by Bindesri Pershad. In December 1903 the plaintiff-appellant advanced a sum of Rs. 1,201 to Bindesri Pershad for the purposes of the business.

(2.) On December 15th, 1905, Bindesri Pershad executed a deed of gift in favour of his son Sham Sundar. He seems to have repented of the gift and litigation followed. Ultimately Musammat Gangajali was appointed guardian of Sham Sundar. In the present suit, instituted in August 1909, plaintiff claims a decree for Rs. 2,369 odd against Bindesri Pershad, Nandan Pershad and Sham Sundar. The amount claimed is made up of the sum of Rs. 1,201 mentioned above, interest thereon and other items, Bindesri Pershad and Nandan Pershad died after the institution of the suit but the plaintiff s rights are not affected thereby.

(3.) The first Court passed a decree against Sham Sundar for a small sum of money and dismissed the rest of the claim. The plaintiff appealed. The questions for decision in the lower Appellate Court were (1) whether the plaintiff had succeeded in proving the advanca of Rs. l,20i in December 1903 and that the debt was still outstanding; (2) whether the acknowledgment made by Bindesri Pershad on November the 18th, 1906, is binding on the defendant Sham Sundar and could be used for the purpose of extending limitation as against Sham Sundar, and (3) whether the claim should be decreed against Sham Sundar by reason of hjs liability under the Hindu Law to pay his father s debts.