BALDEO PRASAD Vs. RAM AUTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two points have been urged in this appeal. It appears that the appellant purchased a bond from one Ghulam Mohi-ud-din and brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, on foot of it. The bond was given on the, 6 of October 1914 by the father of the respondents. The defence was that there was no consideration for the bond, that it had been agreed between the parties that Ghulam Mohi-ud-din who was the landlord of the executant, would lease out certain lands to the executant and the executant would pay the consideration money of the bond as a premium or nazrana. No such lease having been executed, the bond was without consideration.

(2.) The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court found that the allegation of the defendants was correct and dismissed the suit.

(3.) In appeal it is contended that it was not open to the respondents, being the representatives of the late executant of the bond, to set up a plea that the bond was executed under circumstances other than those mentioned in the deed itself. This argument is not sound. The plea taken by the respondents was to the effect that there was no consideration for the bond. By proviso (1) of Section 92, it is open to a party or his representative to show that there is no consideration for the agreement which may have been reduced into writing and which may have even been registered. The learned Counsel for the appellant takes his stand on the case of Sri Ram V/s. Firm Sobha Ram Gopal Rai 67 Ind. Cas. 513 : 20 A.L.J. 315; (1922) A.I.R. (A.) 213 : 4 U.P.L.R. (A.) 153 : 44 A. 521. In that case a party sued on an unconditional promissory note given by the opposite party and it was held that the executant of the promissory note could not show that the money was not to be paid on demand, but was meant to be paid under other circumstances. It is not necessary to express any opinion as to the correctness or otherwise of the ruling, simply because the facts of the two cases are entirely different. In this case, as I have already stated, all that the respondents seek to establish is that there is no consideration for the bond. This they could do, not only under the express provision of law, but also under their Lordships of the Privy Council's ruling, reported in the case of Sah, Lal Chand V/s. Indarjit 20 A. 370 : 4 C.W.N. 485 : 2 Bom. L.R. 553 : 27 I.A. 93 : 7 Sar. P.C.J. 702 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1281 (P.C.). The same view was adopted in this Court in the case of Chuni Bibi V/s. Basanti Bibi 24 Ind. Cas. 661 : 36 A. 537 : 12 A.L.J. 969.