FIRM CHUNI LAL TUKKI MAL Vs. FIRM MUKAT LAL RAM CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point for decision in this appeal is as to whether the document in suit is a promissory note or acknowledgement of liability with an agreement to pay.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present appeal are that firm Chunni Lal Tukki Mal who are the appellants in the present appeal filed the suit against another firm Mukat Lal Ram Chandra on the allegation that the plaintiff's firm was a ioint Hindu family firm carrying on business in grain in Eazar Puranagani at Sikandarabad and the defendants' firm also carried on business in grain, Gur etc. at Sikandarabad district Bulandshahr It was alleged that the defendant No. 2 a branch firm of defendant No. 1 carried on business at Ghaziabad, Meerut. It was alleged that the defendant Ram Chandra and one deceased Mukat Lal were the partners of the above mentioned firms and the defendants Ratan Lal and Rameshwar Dayal carried on the business of the firm Ratan Lal Rameshwar Daval at Ghaziabad. Meerut, for and on behalf of defendant No. 1 and that the plaintiff carried on its business in forward delivery transactions in Gur and other commodities through the commission agencies of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 These transactions resulted in certain profits to the plaintiff and on 28th December 1952 there was an accounting between the parties in which the defendants Ratan Lal and Rameshwar Daval accepted the liability on their behalf as well as on behalf of other defendants to the extent of Rs 35447/8/9 and agreed to pay the same in six monthly instalment of Rs. 1800.00each the first instalment falling due on 30th June 1953 This agreement was reduced to writing and since the defendants did not pay the instalments as agreed hence the suit for the recovery of the instalments due at the date of suit. Interest at the rate of Rs 6.00per annum was also claimed

(3.) THE other written statement filed by defendants Ratan Lal Rameshwar Dayal mainly contested on the ground that the document relied on by the plaintiff was got executed by them under undue influence, threat and pressure It was alleged that in fact no accounting at all had taken place nor any amount was found due against them and in favour of the plaintiff They joined hands with the other defendants in denying that they had any authority to execute any promissory note for the firm defendant No. 2. They also pleaded that the document relied on by the plaintiff being a promissory note and being deficiently stamped could not form the basis of the suit.