SITARAM Vs. DOMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MACNAIR , J.C. 1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was based on bonds executed by Manaji. It is admitted before me that Manaji, in the bonds, is not described as manager of the joint Hindu family. The lower appellate Court has held that Manaji was the manager of the joint family but has disbelieved the evidence of the plaintiffs that the money borrowed was taken for family purposes and that the bond executed in 1924 acknowledged the debts due in the previous bonds on behalf of the family. Manaji is dead and the suit against the surviving members of the joint family has accordingly been dismissed.

(2.) THE argument in appeal is as follows: The District Judge has based his judgment, to a very large extent, on an inference drawn from the fact that the plaintiffs obtained the signatures of other adult members of the family on previous bonds. This inference, which is not justified, caused him to reject the evidence of respectable witnesses which had been accepted by the first Court. Therefore, although the first Court's decision regarding the effect of the evidence must stand final as to the facts, it is the soundness of the conclusions drawn from the facts that is in question, and this is a matter of law: Ramgopal v. Shamskhaton [1893] 20 Cal. 93. The conclusions of the District Judge can, therefore, be challenged in appeal.

(3.) THE family has been in money difficulties for many years and it is not improbable that the money was borrowed by Manaji for purposes of cultivation, but it was for the plaintiffs to prove that the money was borrowed by Manaji in his capacity of manager and that either there was necessity for the loan, or the plaintiffs, after due enquiry, had reason to believe that there was such necessity. The plaintiffs' evidence on these points has been disbelieved. I might have come to a different conclusion with regard to this evidence, but I am unable to set aside the finding of the final tribunal merely on the ground that undue weight was laid on certain facts which it was proper to consider. The evidence of the plaintiffs has been rejected and, without that evidence, it is not possible to hold that the money must have been borrowed by Manaji in his capacity of manager for the purpose of carrying on the agriculture of the family since it is not impossible that the plaintiffs were content to lend money to Manaji in his personal capacity. The same considerations apply to both bonds on which money was advanced and to the bond which was the renewal of one of the former bonds. The appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed. Costs on appellant.