PUNJABAI BHILASA Vs. BHAGVANDAS KISANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this second appeal is whether on the facts found the appellant can maintain her claim under the provisions of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. The Court of first instance found in favour of that plea and decreed the claim. The appellate Court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit with costs in both Courts.

(2.) The appellant is the widow and legal representative of one Bhilasa. The respondent obtained a money decree against Bhilasa in suit No. 192 of ltd 2 and sought after his death by Darkhast No. 1076 of 1918 to execute the decree against his estate. While the darkhat was pending the appellant purported to sell certain lands belonging to the estate to one Dhanraj Shivlal for Rs. 4,200. The amount due to the respondent was then about Rs 4,000, The respondent owed a sum of Rs. 500 to the panch of the Dasalat Gujarati community of which he was a member. Dhanraj Shivlal through the intervention of certain panchas of that community purported to compromise on appellant's behalf the decretal amount due to the respondent by payment of Rs. 500 in cash to the panchas for the claim of the panch against the respondent and passing a demand promissory note for Kb. 8,000 in favour of the respondent. The respondent executed a pavti in favour of the appellant acknowledging the receipt, of lull consideration of the decretal amount. It was well-known to everybody concerned at the time that the respondent was of unsound mind and that no guardian had been appointed to enter into the compromise on his behalf. The appellant set up the pavti in the darkhast proceedings. It was then contended on behalf of the respondent that at the date of the pavti he was of unsound mind and that the compromise arrived at was not binding on him. The appellant then filed a suit against the respondent, being suit No. 264 of 1920, to have it declared that the pavti was binding on the respondent, but subsequently withdrew it. The execution Court held that the respondent was at the date of the pavti of unsound mind and that the compromise wag not for his benefit. The Court ordered the sale of the attached properties and the respondent's claim under the darkhast proceedings has since been satisfied in cash. This suit was brought by the appellant to recover from the panchas, the original defendants Ncs. 1 to 7, or in the alternative from the respondent, the original defendant No. 8, the sum of Rs. 500 paid to the panchas for the debt due by the respondent to the panch.

(3.) The Court of first instance applying the provisions of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act decreed the appellant's claim against the respondent and dismissed the suit against the other defendants.