- (1.) This second appeal at the instance of the defendant arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,500/- on the basis of contract Exhibit P. 2. The averments with which the plaintiff respondent approached the Court were that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 5,000/- to the defendant in the year 1959 and the defendant in return had agreed to treat him as the partner in his business which he wanted to float with the aid of that money; that the defendant did not share with him the profits of the venture and this led him to demand back the amount of the aforesaid loan, that the defendant, vide letter Exhibit P. 1, agreed to return the said amount in monthly instalments of Rs. 50/- each, and that when he did not pay ten monthly instalments, it led him to file a suit fro recovery of Rs. 500/-. In that suit, a compromise Exhibit P.2 as entered into between him and the defendant, as a result whereof the suit stood disposed of. That by virtue of the compromise Exhibit p. 2 the defendant had taken upon himself to pay a sum of Rs. 650/- for which he issued a post-dated cheque. He had also agreed to continue to pay Rs. 50/- P.M. in future till the total amount of loan was paid back. The cheque was dishonoured which led the plaintiff to take criminal proceeding against him and the time the present suit was filed, 30 instalments became due, including the instalments for which the cheque for Rs. 650/- had been issued. This led the plaintiff to file the present suit for recovery of Rs. 1500/-.
(2.) The defendant contested the suit and pleaded that he had not taken any money on loan from the plaintiff. He alleged that what had actually happened was that he had not male issue. The plaintiff agreed to marry Smt. Jito, the pichhlag daughter of his, to the defendant if he was paid bride's money of Rs. 5,000/-; that the marriage took place and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 1,200/- had been paid to the plaintiff, that thereafter, Smt. jito went back to the plaintiff with her jewellary and clothes amounting to Rs. 2500/- and refused to return to him; hat when he asked him (the plaintiff) to send back Smt. Jito, the latter demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/-; that in order to coerce him to pay the bride money the plaintiff filed the first suit for the recovery of Rs. 500/- which he compromised in order to avoid to give notoriety to his marriage, although not a penny had been paid to him by way of any kind of loan; that since no money had been taken by him from the plaintiff, no money was, therefore, due to the plaintiff and that what he was trying to get from him was the bride's money which he was not entitled to.
(3.) The plaintiff filed a rejoinder wherein he reiterated his averments in the plaint and denied the allegations of the defendant. The trial Court framed the following three issues :- "1. Whether the compromise between the parties dated 24th July, 1961 was obtained by the plaintiff by deceitful means as alleged in Para 7 of the written statement; if so, with what effect ? 2. Whether the plaintiff obtained from the defendant a cheque post-dated dated 31st December, 1961 as alleged in para No. 1 of written statement; if so, what is its effect ? 3. To what amount the plaintiff is entitled ?" The defendant led evidence to establish that, in fact, the plaintiff had married his pichhlag daughter Smt. Jito to him on the condition that he would be paid bride money; that the plaintiff had demanded Rs. 5,000/- in this regard initially although he later on agreed to be paid Rs. 2,500/- out of which Rs. 1,300 had been actually paid to him; that after living with him for a month or two she left his house and that the plaintiff demanded more money form him for sending her back to him. The defendant also led evidence to prove as to in what circumstances the compromise Exhibit P.2 was arrived at.;