UMAKANT BALKRISHNA Vs. MARTAND KESHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals and the revision application arise out of suits filed by one Balkrishna against the defendants to recover the amounts due to him on promissory notes passed in favour of "the shop of Balkrishna Saraf". Shortly after the institution of the suit Balkrishna died, and on an application by his two sons, Umakant and Narhari, the plaint was amended and they were brought on record as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff". The principle suit in which evidence was recorded was suit No. 61 of 1925. The defendants put in a written statement in December, 1925, and the main defence was that the claim of the plaintiffs under the promissory note was satisfied by payment made to Narhari, the younger son, in respect of which the latter had passed a receipt. It may be stated that the total principal sum due to the "shop of Balkrishna Waman Saraf" was about Rs. 5,380 exclusive of costs and interest. Besides that there was an outstanding decree for Rs. 1,033 with interest and costs. According to the defendants they paid about Rs. 3,625 in full satisfaction of all these claims and obtained three receipts, the receipt relating to the claim in the principal suit being obtained in 1925. By his reply the plaintiff Umakant contended that the receipt passed by Narhari did not amount to a valid discharge of the debt which was due to the joint family, of which he and his father were members and of which he was the karta after the death of his father. He further contended that the payment, if any, was fraudulent inasmuch as it was made not only after a public notice given in two newspapers warning all the debtors of the shop not to make any payment to Narhari because he was a profligate and a wastrel and dissipating the family property, but even after a specific notice given to the defendants to the same effect. He further contended that nothing in fact was paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. The receipt, Exhibit 50, after referring to the respective promissory notes, stated that a settlement was made by mutual consent and the claim which came to more than Rs. 3,000 was settled for Rs. 2,500, which T. was paid in cash to Narhari. It further recited that if Umakant raised any objection in respect of the same, Narhari was to be liable for the same, and that on no account were the debtors to be troubled. This receipt as well as the others were admittedly passed by Narhari.

(2.) The trial Court raised three issues which are at page 8 of print. The learned Judge held that the alleged satisfaction relied upon by the defendants was not binding against plaintiff No. 1 as the manager of the family. He further held that in fact no moneys were paid to Narhari, and in the result he passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants appealed to the District Judge from this judgment, and the learned District Judge held that, in any event, Narhari was bound to the extent of his share in the family property, but that Umakant was not. The learned Judge, therefore, modified the decree of the trial Court by ordering that the plaintiff should recover a half of the substantive amount decreed by the trial Court which would represent Umakant's share in the debt due to the family firm. Second Appeal No. 655 raises the same question in respect of the second promissory note between the parties, and the revisional application similarly relates to the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the third. It appears that by consent of the parties these cases were heard together and it was agreed that the decision in one case should govern the other two cases. Accordingly, all these matters were heard together by both the Courts below and one judgment recorded. Subject to Mr. Limaye's objection as regards the revisional application, it is understood that the controversy between the parties in all these three cases should be determined by one judgment in this Court also.

(3.) It seems to me to be clear from the record that it was common ground that "the shop of Balkrishna Waman Saraf," as appears from the judgment of the learned District Judge, "was a joint family concern of which Balkrishna and his two sons, Umakant and Narhari, were owners as members of a joint Hindu family." We must, therefore, take this finding, and deal with the appeals on the footing that the promissory notes in question were passed in favour of the joint family consisting of Balkrishna and his two sons, Umakant and Narhari.