CHATRING MOOLCHAND Vs. LIEUTRHWHITCHURCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs, a firm, of money-lenders at Poona, have filed this suit as a summary suit against the defendant, a Lieutenant in the Indian army, to recover the sum of Rs. 6409-12 alleged to be due for principal and interest on a demand promissory note for Rs. 6000 given to them by the defendant on the 14 September 1906. By an order of the 5 May 1907 the defendant was given liberty to defend the suit and his affidavit of the 1 May was taken as his written statement. The execution of the note is admitted and the questions I have to decide are (1) what were the true facts relating to the transactions between the parties and (2) whether the defendant is entitled to relief under Secs.16 and 19 of the Contract Act or otherwise.

(2.) It appears that on the 30 July the defendant, who was then stationed at Aurangabad, wrote to the plaintiffs asking them to come to him to arrange a loan. On the 1 August the plaintiffs replied asking for Rs. 10 to pay their travelling expenses. The original correspondence is not forthcoming but Ex. A is the draft of plaintiffs letter of the 1 August, Ex. U is the entry crediting Rs. 10 to suspense account on the 14 August received for expenses from defendant and Ex. W is the entry debiting the Rs. 10 to the suspense account on the 18 August when the money had been used for the journey to Aurangabad. Defendant said he did not remember asking the plaintiffs to come to Aurangabad, they had come to see Captain Oliphant who lived in the same bungalow with him and he took the opportunity to negotiate a loan. I think it more probable that the plaintiffs are right and that defendant at Captain Oliphant's suggestion wrote to the plaintiffs asking them to come to him. When the plaintiffs Chetring Surajmal met the defendant the following arrangement was arrived at. The defendant was to sign a bond for Rs. 4000 repayable by 32 monthly instalments of Rs. 125. The rate of interest was fixed at If per cent per mensem and interest was to be deducted at this rate for 32 months. Defendant was to hand over a policy on his life for Rs. 5000. The defendant says that the full interest was deducted amounting to Rs. 2240 and that he only received Rs. 1760 as follows : a cheque on Grindley Groom and Co. for Rs. 1230, Rs. 30 in cash and a chithi for Rs. 500. As the plaintiffs had no stamped paper and as defendant had not got the policy with him it was arranged that the stamped paper should be sent from Poona and that when the plaintiff received the bond duly executed and the policy they would send the Rs. 500 in exchange for the chithi. On the other hand Chatring Surajmal says that defendant objected to so much being deducted for interest as he wanted Rs. 2500 in cash and after some bargaining only Rs. 1655 were deducted for interest and Rs. 615 were paid in cash instead of Rs. 30 as alleged by the defendant; [His Lordship after discussing the evidence in detail continued: ]

(3.) I find therefore that the defendant received in cash Rs. 1760 on the bond of the 23rd August 1903 and Rs. 100 on the promissory note for Rs. 6000.