RAJA BEJOY SINGH DUDHURIA Vs. KUMUDI KANTA TALUKDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in the suit out of which this second appeal arises are three brothers, Rebati Kanta Talukdar, Kumndi Kanta Talukdar and Abani Kanta Talukdar.

(2.) It appears that defendant No. 1 had dealings with the plaintiff. In the year 1321 there was an adjustment of accounts and defendant No. 1 executed a hatchita acknowledging his indebtedness to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 3,062-1. In the following year, 1322, the defendant No. 1 who was a Treasurer in the Mymen-singh Collectorate, was arrested on a charge of embezzlement and was placed in custody in jail pending his trial, In that state of things, defendants Nos. 2 and 13 went to the plaintiff for the purpose of procuring money with which to obtain the release of defendant No. 1, on bail, and to make arrangements for his defence. What occurred according to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 themselves is thus described in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge in the trial Court. " Understanding from him " (the officer of the plaintiff s firm) " that the desired loan would not be had if some ornaments were not pledged, they (defendants Nos. 2 and 3) went with some ornaments to the plaintiff s firm the next morning (21st November 1915) but then the plaintiff s officer told them that unless they made mobalaghundi including the debt of defendant No. 1, no loan could be given them even on pledge of ornaments. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 depose that they declined to take any loan on the said condition and came away, that they then in company of a Muktear, Babu Akhoy Kumur Ghosh, tried during the whole day to raise loan from other persons, but being unsuccessful, came back to the plaintiff s firm after evening and having no other alternative they had to give in and took a loan of Rs. 1,200 after making mobalaghundi as it was desired of them. "

(3.) On these allegations the defence set up by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 is this, that the acknowledgment of their liability in respect of the amount for which the defendant No. 1 had admitted his indebtedness, was obtained from them by undue influence.