Decided on August 08,1955



Dave, J. - (1.) This is a first appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Balotra, dated 13-7-1953 whereby their suit has-been dismissed.
(2.) The plaintiffs in this case 'were seven in number. Their case was that plaintiffs 1 and 2 Multanmal and Dayachand and one Nenmal, who was the deceased father of plaintiff 3, carried on business to the name and style of Multanmal Juharmal and Company. Defendants 5 and 6 were also sons of the deceased Nenmal but they had separated from the father in his lifetime and so they were impleaded only as pro forma defendants. It was averred that the remaining defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were members of a joint family and that defendants 1 and 2 Sanwalchand and Babulal, who were Kartas of "that family, borrowed from the plaintiffs' firm Multanmal Juharmal and Company Rs. 9801/- on Fagan Sud 11 Samwat 2001 and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 8 annas per cent per mensem. The claim was thus founded on a Khata dated Fagan Sud 11 Samwat 2001 which was said to have been executed by the defendants Babulal Sanwal chand as Karta of the joint family. According to the plaintiffs, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 failed to repay the loan and interest. It was, therefore, prayed that a decree for the principal amount of Rs. 9801/-plus Rs. 3529/- for interest, in all for Rs. 13,330/-be given in the plaintiffs' favour against the defendants. The plaintiffs also prayed for interest pendente lite and future interest at 6 per cent, till realization of the amount and costs.
(3.) The, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 contested the suit on several grounds including one of limitation. On 15-2-1952, the trial Court, therefore, framed six issues. Thereafter an application was presented by the plaintiffs on 3-12-1952 saying that they had transferred their entire rights to recover the debt for which the present suit was brought and made an assignment in favour of Tikuchand son of Kesrimal Oswal resident of Bhinmal and, therefore, their names should be struck off and the name of Shri Tikuchand should be substituted in their place. Another application to the same effect was presented by Shri Tikuchand on 5-121952. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 contested these applications also and, therefore, a seventh issue was added on 2-2-1953. It is unnecessary to repeat all the issues here because the trial court has taken up the decision of issues Nos. 2 and 7 only which are as follows: Issue No. 2:-- If the suit is within limitation.? Issue No. 7:-- If the plaintiffs legally assigned the document in question and with consideration in favour of Tikuchand, so his name is to be substituted in place of the plaintiffs.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.