RULDU Vs. PRABHU DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are that the present respondent Prabhu Dayal had filed a suit (which has given rise to this second appeal) for the recovery of Rs. 4,040/- on the allegations that Ruldu defendant (now appellant) had borrowed Rs. 3,000/- on interest at the rate of 1% per month and had executed a pronote. According to him, the defendant did not pay him anything in spite of notices. The money sued for included Rs. 3,000/- as principal and Rs. 1,040/- as interest.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit. According to him, the pronote was without consideration. It was not presented to him according to law and therefore, the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable. He had replied to the notice given by the plaintiff stating that no amount was due from him. The plaintiff was a money-lender and had not given any notice to him under the Punjab Regulation of Accounts 1980 Act. According to the defendant, the real facts were.

(3.) That the plaintiff, his sons and their wives had, started a brick kiln under the name of Brick Kaln Co-operative Society, Kansandi, in village Nizampur. The defendant had also joined as a partner. In 1966 the brick kiln was closed and on going through the accounts, Rs. 864/- were found due from some persons belonging to village Nizampur. The defendant's share out of this realisation was 1/4th. The plaintiff asked the defendant, who also belonged to village Nizampur, to realise that amount and to pay him (i.e. plaintiff), his share. The pronote for Rs. 3,000/- was got executed from the defendant as security for the said realisation, lost the defendant kept the amount with him. The defendant fell ill and could not realise any amount and on the other hand, the plaintiff himself realised those amounts. The plaintiff asserted that some amount had been realised by the defendant. On defendant's refusal, some persons gathered in the village as a Panchayat and The Panchayat enquired from those persons from whom the amount was due and they satisfied the plaintiff that he (i.e. defendant) had not reaslised any amount. In fact, those persons said the amount had been paid to the plaintiff. On that day, the Panchayat got a compromise effected between the parties. The share of the defendant was transferred to one Jit Singh son of Deep Chand while the share of his (i.e. defendant's) wife was transferred to Ram Dhari and a document was executed to the effect that no amount was due from the defendant to the said Society.