BHAGWATI PRASAD BHAGAT Vs. PAHIL SUNDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the plaintiffs and defendant No. 6 arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 2061/-, the principal advanced on the basis of a handnote dated the 8th of November, 1957, besides interest, which has been dismissed by the trial court. An appeal by the plaintiffs before the lower appellate court against the decree of the trial court was also dismissed. The handnote is in favour of defendant No. 6, who is appellant No. 4 before this Court, and was executed by Mosst. Pahil Sun-dari and Naresh Mishra, respondents 1 end 2 before this Court of the defendants first party.

(2.) According to the plaintiffs, at the time of the execution of the handnote (Ext. 1), the body portion of which was also written by respondent No. 2, they and defendant No. 6 constituted a Hindu Mitakshara joint family of which defendant No. 6 was the karta and the money advanced was of the joint family. Subsequently there was a partition between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 6. The handnote in question fell to the share of the plaintiffs. Their further case was that respondents 1 and 2 took this loan as managing members of a Hindu Mitakshara joint family of the defendants first party and all the five defendants first party were liable to pay it. Respondent No. 1 is the mother of respondent No. 2. The other three respondents are minor sons of respondent No. 1. Their father and husband of respondent No. 1 is dead.

(3.) The defence of respondents 1 and 2 who contested the suit as disclosed in their written statement and in reply to interrogatories which they were called upon to answer by the court at the instance of the plaintiffs was that the hand-note was not executed by them though the thumb marks and signatures on the paper on which the handnote was written were theirs. They denied passing of any consideration under the handnote. Their case further was that the plaintiffs having no money lending licence, the suit was hit by Section 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act and not maintainable. According to them, it was also not maintainable as there was no endorsement in favour of the plaintiffs of the handnote by defendant No. 6.