BHOGI RAM Vs. KISHORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a decree of the lower appellate Court setting aside the decree of the trial Court allowing the plaintiff's claim on a promissory note. The suit of the plaintiff was a simple one on a promissory note. The answer of the defendant, however, disclosed other dealings; and it has been round by both Courts that the plaintiff's denials of those dealings were false.

(2.) The language used throughout, and particularly in the judgment of the lower appellate Court, has not been as clear as it might well have been, and a more detailed statement of the pleadings and the findings is necessary than is usually the case in such suits. The defendant pleaded: (a) (Further plea No. 2). That he, the defendant, used to hand over gur, sugar and grain to the plaintiff to be sold on account of the defendant. (b) (Further plea No. 2). That pending the sale and recovery of the price of the goods plaintiff used to advance to the defendant sums of money bearing interest,. (i) "on the security of the goods," and (ii) "for the further satisfaction" of the plaintiff, defendant used to execute promissory notes for the sums advanced. (c) (Further plea No. 2). That the money received by the plaintiff from the sale of the goods was to be deducted as received from the debt due by the defendant.

(3.) So far I find this pleading of the defendant to be quite simple and straightforward. In the accounting between them the amounts received by the plaintiff on sale of the goods were to be entered on the credit side to the defendant, and the amounts advanced to the defendant were to be entered on the debit side against the defendant.