RAJARAM DEVAI Vs. LAKSHMI SANKARA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The appellant contends that the Subordinate Judge ought not to have charged him with the value of the remissions made by him in 1891, 1892, 1893. and 1898. As regards the 50 kalams remitted in 1898 we are not prepared to say that the Subordinate Judge's view is incorrect. The appellant was then a wrongdoer in that he was improperly retaining possession of the plaintiff's property after he had attained majority, and no sufficient reason is adduced to justify the grant of so large a remission, if it was in fact granted. As regards the three earlier remissions they were much smaller in amount and they were granted long before relations between the parties were strained. They are proved by the appellant's sworn evidence to have been, in fact, made, and to have been made on good grounds, and he is supported by his contemporaneously written accounts, which we see no reason to discredit. The appellant must be allowed the value of these remissions, viz-. Rs. 91-9-02.
(2.) The appellant further contends that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in charging him with Rs. 29-9-6 and Rs. 14-7-0 on account of interest on sums which the appellant ought to have invested for plaintiff's benefit but did not.
(3.) The amount of these sums and the circumstances under which and the periods for which they were not invested are stated by the Subordinate Judge in paragraphs 26 and 27 of his Judgment. There is no proof that the appellant made any profit out of these sums or used them for his own purposes. Had he done so he would be clearly liable to the plaintiff.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.