Modi, J. - (1.) THIS is a first appeal by defendants Ramanlal and Murlidhar against a judgment and decree of the Civil judge, Churu, dated 22 -9 -1951, in suit for money.
(2.) THE plaintiff Ramgopal's case as set out in the amended plaint was that he carried on business as a money -lender in Moulmein (Burma) in the name of Bilas Rai Ramgopal and that the defendants who were brothers also did business there and used to borrow money from him from time to time, it was alleged by the plaintiff that he left Burma on 11 -12 -1941, as a result of the Second World War having broken out there, and that on 6 -12 -1941 a sum of Rs. 21,142/7/ - remained outstanding against the defendants, and on 10 -12 -1941, further sums of Rs. 581/4/ - and Rs. 2000/ -were debited against the defendants so that in all Rs. 23,723/11/ - became due from them. To this the plaintiff added a sum of Rs. 3947 -5 -3 as interest at the rate of 14 annas per cent, per mensem from 6 -12 -1941, up to the date of the suit thus bringing the total to Rs. 27,671/0/3. It was admitted that the defendants had paid back sums amounting to Rs. 21,000/ -. The plaintiff, therefore, brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,671/0/3 with pending and future interest. The defendants resisted the suit. Defendant Ramanlal who described himself as residing at Churu but then living at Calcutta completely repudiated the plaintiff's claim. He contended that he did not borrow any money from the plaintiff and that on the other hand the former had advanced a sum of Rs. 21,000/ - to the plaintiff on interest at his request in order to help him to set up some kind of business in Moulmein and the defendant did so because he knew the plaintiff and had full faith in his integrity. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff left Burma for India in December 1941. It may be pointed out that the plaintiff had brought his suit in the first instance on a balance sheet only which he had brought over from Burma with himself as he had left his account books in Burma. This provided an opportunity to the defendants to contend that it was impossible that the plaintiff should have advanced such a considerable amount without having taken any writing from the defendants. Defendant Ramanlal further questioned the jurisdiction of the Churu Court to try the suit as according to him he had never resided at Churu at any material time nor did the cause of action partly or wholly arise there. He also alleged that he had instituted a suit in the High Court at Calcutta for the recovery of Rs. 21,000/ - together with interest against the plaintiff, other pleas raised by him were that the suit was bad for non -joinder of parties and that it was barred by limitation. It will be convenient to state here that the other defendant Murlidhar, who was later added as a defendant on 11 -6 -48 by an amendment of the plaint, also denied the plaintiff's claim and filed his written statement generally on the same line as that of his brother Ramanlal.
(3.) THE learned District Judge, Churu, in whose Court the plaintiff had instituted his suit, dismissed it on 21 -10 -1946. The plaintiff took an appeal to the High Court of the former state of Bikaner where the appeal was allowed and the case remanded for further evidence and a fresh decision. This happened on 29 -10 -1947. It was after the remand that the plaintiff obtained permission to implead Murlidhar as defendant also and impleaded him as such. The case had in the meantime been transferred to the Civil Judge, Churu, owing to re -organization of Courts and the learned Civil Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit against both defendants. This appeal is directed against the above judgment and decree.;