LALLA SHEOPARSHAD ... Vs. JUGGERNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit instituted on the 30th of May, 1879, by Lalla Sheoparshad, a banker of Lucknow, who carries on business through his brother-in-law, Paras Ram. The Defendant is one Juggernath Parshad, described as "the son and representative of the late Deendial," also of Lucknow. The plaint sets forth that there were commercial transactions between Deendial and Sheoparshad, and that Deendial died on the 23rd of November, 1878. Then it states that on the 22nd or 23rd of December, 1878, the Defendant Juggernath, then his father's administrator, called upon the Plaintiff and received a copy of the account contained in the Plaintiff's books, shewing Rs. 16,378 to be due to the Plaintiff from the late Deendial. The gist of the suit is set forth in paragraph 4 of the plaint, and is as follows : - "That on the 31st of January last" - that is, 1879 - " the Defendant, accompanied by Budree Dass and Kulloo Mull, came to the Plaintiff's house at Lucknow, and in the presence of"--a number of persons named - "admitted the said balance of Rs. 16,378 to be due from his father, but begged that Plaintiff would forego Rs. 1378; and in consideration the Defendant offered to execute a bond for Rs. 15,000, charging all his immoveable property with the payment of Rs. 15,000, bearing-interest at 6 per cent, per annum, payable by annual instalments of Rs. 3000; to which proposals the Plaintiff agreed, and the Defendant promised to execute and register the said bond within two days from that date." The breach alleged is that the Defendant has not executed nor delivered the promised bond. The prayer of the plaint is for the sum of Rs. 15,000, with interest thereon, at 12 per cent., from the 31st of January, 1878, to date, and future interest to the date of liquidation. Now, that is a plaint in a very peculiar form, - it alleges an agreement and the breach of an agreement; it does not pray specific performance of the agreement; it does not fall back upon the state of things prior to the breach of the agreement, viz., the current account between the Plaintiff and Deendial and the debt due from Deendial on the footing of that account; but it takes a portion of the alleged agreement, namely, an admission that Rs.15,000 is due, and, alleging that the Defendant has not given the promised security for that Rs. 15,000, prays for immediate payment of it, with the usual amount of interest.

(2.) ON the part of the Defendant there was no written statement, but there was the usual hearing of pleaders before issues were settled, and the pleader of the Defendant puts in this defence First, he says that Deendial's books shew that he was the creditor upon the account current in a sum of somewhat upwards of Rs. 9000. Then he denies the allegations in paragraph 4 of the plaint, which is the one that has just been read. He says : "No such admission was made by Defendant. Defendant did not go to Plaintiff's house in Lucknow. No offer to execute bond for Rs. 15,000 was made, nor any compromise. What took place was that on comparing the respective accounts the differences were found to be so great that no settlement was made."

(3.) THE only other explanation given is that by Gurdial, who says : "It was urged," - he does not say by whom, but - "it was urged that the balance of Rs.15,000 should be entered in books and signed. I pointed out that, if no instalments were entered by which balance should be defrayed, one anna stamp would suffice; but if instalments were entered, stamp of bond would be necessary. Kunhi Lal," who was acting for the Plaintiff, "then said, ?We can enter the balance in our books, and Juggernath can give us his bond.' Then Juggernath promised his bond in three days. Meeting then broke up."