DEEPAK MAHESHWARI,J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by appellants - defendants against the judgment and decree dated 22nd January, 1998 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions, Kotputli, District Jaipur against them in Civil Original Suit No. 131/1992 for recovery of Rs.76,000/- with costs along with the amount of interest @ 12% per annum since filing of the suit i.e., 27th August, 1984.
(2.) Facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff - Chhajuram and original defendant - Vishambhar Dayal were brothers. As per the facts mentioned in the plaint, both these brothers along with third brother - Kanhaiyalal were having joint business of military canteen. Defendant, being the eldest one, was handling the whole business. After partition, the accounts were settled by them in March, 1980 and a sum of Rs.55,000/- was determined to be paid to the plaintiff by defendant - Vishambhar Dayal. An entry to this effect was made in the account books of plaintiff - Chhajuram by defendant - Vishambhar Dayal on 18th April, 1980 which was made in the hand writing of Banshidhar, who happened to be their Manager. It was decided that the amount will be paid in annual instalments of Rs.5,000/- each. The first instalment will fall due on Baishakh Shudi 3 Samvat 2038. It was also decided that the whole amount shall fall due along with the interest @ 12% per annum on default of payment of any of the instalments. It has been stated in the plaint that the defendant did not pay any of the instalment despite notice. The first instalment became due on 18th April, 1981. As the amount of first instalment became out of the limitation period on 18th April, 1984, hence, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- only has been claimed by way of filing this plaint along with interest amount of Rs.26,000/- while waiving the claim to first instalment.
(3.) Defendant has completely denied the averments made in the plaint by way of filing his written statement. He had denied to have any joint business, settlement of the amount due towards plaintiff and writing of any deed acknowledging the amount due in the account books of the plaintiff. He has alleged such deed to be forged and fabricated.;