BIJOY KUMAR KARNANI Vs. LAHORI RAM PRASHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit the plaintiff is claiming a decree for Rs. 17,684.22 paise. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant executed at Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court, two promissory Notes dated March 21, 1958 for Rs. 5,000/-and September 8, 1958 for Rs. 12,000/- respectively. In acknowledgment of receipt of the said two sums of Rs. 5,000/- and Rupees 12,000/- the defendant executed two receipts and/or vouchers on March 21, 1958 and September 8, 1958, at Calcutta within the said jurisdiction. In or about January, 1961, the said two promissory Notes were lost and/or misled and the plaintiff has not been able to trace the same. Thereafter, on March 14, 1961 the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant that the said promissory notes had been lost and/or misled and called upon the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount due on the promissory notes and offered to indemnify the defendant against any further claim thereof. The defendant failed to pay the amount due on the promissory notes or give any reply to the said letter. Thereafter this suit has been instituted on March 17, 1961.

(2.) The defendant admits execution of the promissory notes and the receipts of the monies under the said promissory notes. The defendant admits that in acknowledgment of receipt of the said sums the defendant duly executed two separate receipts and/or vouchers in favour of the plaintiff, but states that the promissory notes and the receipts and/or vouchers were not executed at Calcutta within the said jurisdiction but the same were executed at 23/21, Gariahat Road outside the aforesaid jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) The defendant denies that the plaintiff is the Karta of the joint family consisting of himself and his sons Chandra Kumar Karnani and Sudarshan Kumar Karnani. The defendant states that the plaintiff alone is not entitled to file this suit against the defendant. Further case of the defendant is that the defendant repaid the sum of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- in due course and the said promissory notes had been discharged by payments. The defendant states that upon receipt of the sums the plaintiff returned the said two promissory notes duly discharged to the defendant. With regard to the letter dated March 14, 1961, the defendant states that after receipt of the said letter the defendant met the plaintiff and objected to his writing of such frivolous letter knowing fully well that the contents of the said letter were totally false.