HARI MOHAN GHOSE Vs. SOURENDRA NATH MITTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All that need be said byway of introduction is to be found in my earlier judgments on the questions which arose when learned Counsel submitted the issues to be tried.

(2.) The principal points argued are embodied in issues 1 and 7, but they will be more conveniently considered later.

(3.) There is no doubt whatever in my mind that; Charu Chunder Mitter entered into the transaction with the plaintiff as karta of the family. Nor have I any doubt that this liability after his death was treated as a liability of the family which had the use of the money. In support of these conclusions there is the oral evidence of the plaintiff as to the circumstances in which the loan was made there are the payments by Sourendra Nath of interest endorsed on the note, and the corresponding entries in the family accounts; there are a series of statements made by the parties contained in judicial records; and there are Sourendra's own letters.