- (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a money suit.
(2.) THE appellant Basti Ram sued Ram Nath and Megh Raj on the 29th of June, 1943, on the basis of a bond dated Baisakh Vadi I, Smt. 1987,execu-ted by the said defendants for a sum of Rs. 176/8/ -. It was alleged that the defendants paid Rs. 60/- as interest and the plaintiff claimed Rs. 176/8/-as principal and Rs. 173/8/- as interest. THE plaintiff made Kami Dan his brother a pro forma defendant on an allegation that on a partition between the brothers, the debt had fallen to the share of the plaintiff. THE defendants pleaded that they had paid the entire amount of this debt along with other debts to Karni Dan on 27th of December, 1939, and produced a receipt in support thereof. THE trial court dismissed the suit but on appeal it was held that the receipt executed by Karni Dan did not exonerate the debtors so far as the plaintiff's half share in the debt was concerned and a decree for Rs. 117/8/- was passed. In this second appeal, it was argued, firstly, that the debt was outstanding in favour of the joint Hindu family and as the plaintiff was the elder brother, there was presumption that he was a manager of the family and, therefore, any discharge given by Kami Dan who was a junior member of the family was not binding on the plaintiff. It was also argued that according to the statement of Karni Dan, no payment in cash was made to him and, therefore, the debt had not been discharged even to the extent of half share to Karni Dan. It was also urged that the plaintiff should have been awarded costs on the entire claim and interest till realisation of decree. As to the first point, it may be mentioned that the plaint doss not mention that the debt was due to a joint Hindu family firm or that the plaintiff was its manager. The bond is in the name of Basti Ram, Karni Dan and there is nothing on the record to show that this Basti Ram Karni Dan was a joint Hindu family firm. Apparently, the bond was in favour of the two brothers as joint promisees. The trial court has given a finding against the plaintiff on the plea that there had been a partition between Basti Ram and Kami Dan and the debt fell to the share of the plaintiff and this finding has not been challenged. It may also be mentioned that in the statement, Basti Ram has admitted that for the last 6 years, the defendant Kami Dan was separate from the plaintiff. The point which remains for consideration is whether in the case of joint promisees, one of them has authority to discharge the entire debt. The learned counsel for the appellant cited 1925 Mad. 261. The trend of law appears to be that in the case of joint promisees where there is no specification as to the source of money, the presumption can be made that the money was advanced in equal shares and the payment made to one of them without reference to others does not discharge the debt due to others. Reference may be made to XXXII All. 164, XXV All. 155 and 1930 All. 98. It was contended on the authority of 1925 Mad. 261 that while a payment made is a valid discharge of the mortgage liability, a promise to pay would not, and that in the present case, according to the statement of Kami Dan, who had appeared as witness for the defendants, do actual payment was made. In the case relied upon, only a promise to pay in future was made. But in the present case, according to the statement of Kami Dan, the debtors executed a 'rukka' in favour of the father-in-law of Kami Dan, and, therefore, the contract of discharge Ex D-1 was for consideration. The decision in the 1925 Mad. 261 can be distinguished on the ground that there was no consideration for postponing the payment. I, therefore, agree with the lower courts that the discharge given by Kami Dan is valid for the half share in the debt. The lower court has made some error in substracting the amount of Rs. 60/-from the principal debt when the allegation of the plaintiff was that it was paid towards interest while the defendants did not alleged that the payment was made towards principal and the court made a mistake in deducting the amount out of the amount of the bond. The plaintiff's share in the bond being half, the principal debt recoverable would amount to Rs. 88/4/- and interest at 12% P. A. according to the stipulated rate would amount to Rs. 86/12/ -. The total amount recoverable would thus be Rs. 175/ -. The plaintiff is entitled to claim this amount on the aforesaid findings. The plaintiff is no doubt entitled to interest on this sum from the date of decree till realisation. In the grounds of appeal, interest pendente lite was not claimed and, therefore, not allowed. The plaintiff will also get costs on the amount decreed. As a result, the appeal is partially accepted, the decree of the lower court is modified and the sum decreed is enhanced from Rs. 117/8/- to Rs. 175/ -. The appellant will get costs of all the courts on this amount. He will also get interest at 6% P. A. from the date of decree of the trial court till realisation. . ;