C.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by an unsuccessful plaintiff Hanutaram whose suit for recovery of Rs. 3615/ - was decreed by the trial court to the extent of Rs. 3000/ - only but was dismissed by the District Judge, Bikaner on appeal by the defendants.
(2.) THE plaintiff Hanutaram's case is that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 Kanaram and Baksharam respectively took him to village Bansasar with a view to bring about the engagement of his daughter Imali with Taruram brother of defendant No. 1 Kumbharam, but since he did not like the boy on account of the disparity of age between him and his daughter he refused to betroth his daughter with Taruram. It is alleged by the plaintiff that in spite of his refusal the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 gave out that Imali had been betrothed to Taruram and ultimately all the three defendants accompanied by some more persons came to his village and forced him to pay Rs. 3000/ - to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Kumbharam and Hanutaram on the pain of taking away his daughter Imali and forcibly marrying her to Taruram if he did not comply with their demand. Theplaintiff goes on to state that due to the fear of his daughter being forcibly taken away for marriage with Taruram he paid Rs. 3000/ - to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It appears there was also some criminal litigation between the parties but since Hanutaram was not successful in getting back Rs. 3000/ - alleged to have been paid by him to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 under coercion, he filed the present suit on 27 -9 -61 in the Court of Civil Judge, Ratangarh for recovery of Rs. 3000/ -, along with interest Rs. 615/ -. total Rs. 3615/ -. The suit was resisted by the defendants who put up a counter version and pleaded that no money was paid by the plaintiff, but as a matter of fact the plaintiff had betrothed his daughter Imali with Taruram on the condition that Rs. 2500/ - would be paid to him by Taruram's elder brother Kumbharam defendant No. 1 and that Rs. 1500/ - were actually paid by Kumbharam to the plaintiff at the time of engagement and Rs. 1000/ - were promised to be paid later on. The defendants' case is that the plaintiff resiled from his promise to marry his daughter to Taruram and performed her marriage with the son of one Udaram and accepted Rs. 3000/ - from Udaram in lieu of this marriage. It was pleaded that Hanuta Ram voluntarily returned Rs. 1500/ - to the defendant No. 1 Kumbharam on account of having broken the engagement of his daughter, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the learned Civil Judge, Ratangarh by his judgment dated 28 -2 -1963 decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 3000/ - Aggrieved by the judgment and decree by the trial court the defendants filed appeal in the Court of District Judge, Bikaner who. as already stated above, reversed the judgment and decree by the trial court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Consequently the plaintiff has come in second appeal to this Court. At this stage It may be necessary to point out that the plaintiff's suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground of limitation as well and issue No. 3 was struck on the Question of limitation, which runs as follows: '3. Whether the suit is within limitation?' The trial court decided this issue against the defendants by simply observing that the issue had not been pressed by the parties during the course of arguments. In appeal before the learned District Judge the defendants agitated the Question of limitation and the learned District Judge held that the suit was governed by Article 62 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 which was in force at the time of the institution of the suit, and that it was barred by time. However the learned District Judge dealt with the case on merits also and found, that the plaintiff's version was incorrect and that he had not Paid Rs. 3000/ - or any amount as alleged by him to the defendants.
(3.) WHILE hearing this appeal. I called upon the learned counsel for the appellant first to deal with the question of limitation which goes to the root of the case. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff's appeal must fail on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation, and therefore I have not heard the learned counsel for the parties on other points.;