K.D.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil second appeal filed by Sawa and Shankerlal defendants against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge Balotra dated 28 -9 -1967 by which the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge Jalore decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3000/ - as principal and Rs. 511/ - by way of interest together with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of Rs. 6/ - per cent per annum was confirmed.
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the suit out of which this second appeal arises may be briefly stated as follows: Ganpatram instituted a suit against Sawa and Shankerlal defendants for the recovery of sum of Rs. 3511/ -on the basis of a promissory note which was alleged to have been executed by the defendants on 3 -3 -1961 after securing a sum of Rs. 3000/ - from the plaintiff for running their business. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendants agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 12/ -per cent per annum on the principal amount secured by them from the plaintiff and along with the promissory note gave a receipt also for the amount which they had received. After the execution of the promissory note and the receipt the defendants could not make any payment despite repeated demands by the plaintiff. Eventually the plaintiff caused a notice to be served on the defendants through his Advocate Shri Girdharilal Vyas but the later dishonestly gave a wrong reply through that Advocate Shri Sunderlal Sharma and desired to inspect the promissory note. The plaintiff thereupon gave a reply through his Advocate that the defendants could see the promissory note at his house at any time but neither the defendants nor their Advocate came to the house of the plaintiff for inspection of the promissory note. Hence the plaintiff had no other option but to sue them for the principal amount plus interest at the stipulated rate. The defendants appeared in the court of Civil Judge in which the suit was instituted and filed their written statement wherein they denied execution of the promissory note and the receipt after securing a loan of Rs. 3000/ -from the plaintiff on 3 -3 -1961. In their additional pleas the defendants further pleaded that the promissory note and the receipt were forged documents as no loan of Rs. 3000/ -was ever secured by them from the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that Shanker Lal defendant No. 2 was a minor at the time of execution of the alleged promissory note and receipt because he was born on Chet Bud 8, Samvat 2002 and Sawa defendant No. 1 was residing in Ahmedabad at that time and was under treatment and so no question of the promissory note and the receipt being executed by them could arise. According to their plea the relations between the plaintiffs grand son Sevaram and Shankerlal defendant No. 2 were highly strained and so the plaintiff in order to wreck vengeance had instituted a false and fictitious suit against the defendants who, therefore, are entitled to get compensatory costs.
(3.) UPON pleadings of the parties the learned Civil Judge framed as many as 4 following issues: 1. Did the defendants executed the promissory note which is the basis of the suit ?2. Is the aforesaid promissory note without consideration? 3. Was defendant No. 2 a minor at the time of execution of the promissory note in question and so the plaintiff was not entitled to get any decree against him? 4. Relief? After the issues were framed Ganpatram plaintiff died on 12 -2 -1964 and his legal representatives, namely, Pratapnarain, Mst. Gajra and Mst. Teeja were brought on record as plaintiffs. Thereafter the learned Civil Judge recorded the evidence of the parties and after careful scrutiny thereof decided issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. Accordingly he decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3000/ - as principal and Rs. 511/ - as interest against the defendants with costs and with pendents lite and future interest at the rate of Rs. 6/ - per annum on the principal sum. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge the defendants preferred an appeal in the court of District Judge Balotra who after going through the record and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. As against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge Balotra Sawa and Shankerlal defendants have come up in second appeal to this Court as stated above. ;