GOPI NATH Vs. SRIMATI CHAMELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal against a decree of the learned Civil Judge of Meerut. The following pedigree will give relationship of the parties:

(2.) The plaintiff Srimati Chameli, widow of Jamna Prasad, comes into Court on the allegations that she is the owner of the firm styled Lira Lal Jamna Prasad; that the firm was originally owned by L. Hira Lal and his adopted son Jamna Prasad; that after their death Khushi Ram, the adopted son of Jamna Prasad, became the owner of the said firm; that on the death of Khushi Ram, Mt. Mahadevi widow of Khushi Ram, succeeded to her husband; that Mt. Mahadevi died in 1919 and the plaintiff as the widow of Jamna Prasad became the owner of the firm; that the defendants had a firm styled Kedari Prasad Chhedi Lal at Ferozpur which carried on banking, money lending and contract business; that for several years a current account has been running between the two firms of the parties and the two firms have been receiving and paying money to and from each other; that the interest on the outstandings was paid or received by each other at the rate of 7 annas 9 pies per cent per mensem; that the accounts between the two firms were settled on 31 March 1928 when Rs. 54,376-1.9 was found due to the firm of the plaintiff; that defendant 1 represented the defendants firm and acknowledged the liability for the aforesaid amount and executed a promissory note for the said sum on 29 May 1928; that on 31 March 1929, the accounts of the two firms were again examined and checked by the parties and the sum of Rs. 57,205-7-3 was found due from the defendants firm; that defendant 1 on 5 February 1930 executed another promissory note for Rs. 57,205-7-3 which included the amount due under the previous promissory note of 1928; that the defendants were members of a joint Hindu family but separated from each other some eight months before the institution of the suit; that in spite of notice the defendants failed to pay the debt due from them; hence the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 64,562-6-0 from the defendants with pendente lite and future interest.

(3.) Defendant 1 admitted the claim of the plaintiff but defendant 2 contested it inter alia on the grounds that the plaintiff was not the owner of the firmHira Lal Jamna Prasad; that the Ferozpur firm did not borrow any money from the firm styled Hira Lal Jamna Prasad; that the defendants themselves were the owners of the firm Hira Lal Jamna Prasad as well as of the Ferozpur firm; that separate accounts were maintained for the facility in payment of income-tax; that no promissory notes were executed with the knowledge and consent of the contesting defendant; that the promissory notes in suit were antedated and were executed by defendant 1 some little time before the institution of the suit with a view to saddle the contesting defendant with liability for the loan which was time barred.