ARUN BHANSALI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 17.02.1990 passed by District Judge, Bhilwara, whereby, the suit filed by the appellant -plaintiffs was partly decreed.
(2.) THE suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,014/ - and the trial court has granted decree for a sum of Rs.3,416/ -; the suit was filed claiming that the plaintiffs, who are part of a Hindu undivided family are involved in the business of Tobacco; on 21.10.1977 an account statement was delivered to the defendants and the and same was understood by them and was accepted, which pertained to purchase of certain Tobacco from Gujarat by the the plaintiffs for the defendants; the said statement was for a sum of Rs.5,646/ -; it was claimed that as the plaintiff was not well he could not charge 4% commission and gave the entire commission of 12% on the said amount to the defendant which a sum of Rs.1,435/ - plaintiff was entitled to receive back, further a sum of Rs.215/ - were claimed for certain goods taken on credit, which amount was not paid; the plaintiff also claimed Rs.90/ - towards notice expenses and interest @ 1.5% per month from the date of Bill to the date of filing suit and in total claimed a sum of Rs.10,014/ -. The suit was resisted by the defendants and the averments contained in the plaint were denied; it was stated that on 21.10.1977, the account was not settled and defendant has been delivered only a Bill, which cannot be said to be an acknowledgement of outstanding sum; the claim regarding goods worth Rs.215/ -, notice expenses, interest and commission was also denied; it was further alleged in the additional pleas that the plaintiff was liable to send the Tobacco in Woven Sacks (Bori) only which was deficit and which cannot be charged; further amounts claimed in the Bill were also disputed.
(3.) THE trial court framed eight issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the defendants, three witnesses were examined. After hearing of the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the document (Exhibit ­ 1) cannot be said to be an account statement and was merely a Bill and thereafter, examined the claim of the plaintiffs on the said Bill and objections raised by the defendants on the said Bill and came to the conclusion that the freight claimed in Exhibit ­ 1 was already paid, plaintiffs were not entitled for value of 475 Sacks and the goods worth Rs.215/ - and were also not entitled to charge interest claimed.;