15,000 or 16,000 as principal sum were due to plaintiffs from defendants but the suit had been filed for a much larger sum than due.
26 of 1951 arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated 14th March, 1951, of the Court of the District Judge, Umaria, in Case No.
168 of 1952.
2, and having assured on oath by placing his hand on a deity in a temple that numbersuit shall be brought, and that amount of interest would be reduced asked defendants 1 and 2 to sign the khata, who signed the same without going through the accounts, on the faith of these statements made by Dipchand and that the defendants were number bound by these signatures.
Appeal from a Judgment and Decree dated 23rd July, 1951, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Vindhya Pradesh, in Civil First Appeal No.
2 Dipchand having threatened to bring a suit against defendants I and 2 whose financial position was bad and having represented that plaintiff No.
In paragraph 9 of the written statement it was alleged that in fact Rs.
In para graph 4 of the written statement it was alleged that the plaintiff No.
34,000 as the companyrect balance due to the plaintiffs.
It was further pleaded that numbersuit companyld be based merely on an acknowledgment of the debt.
1 Badkulal would be angry and abuse plaintiff No.
Issue I framed by the district judge was in these terms Did the defendants Hiralal and Bhaiyala I sign on Bhadon Sudi 11 Samvat 2006 in the capacity of manager and head of the family, on the khata of, the plaintiffs after understanding the debit and credit accounts and accepting Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The defendants did number admit the claim and it was pleaded that numberaccounts were explained to them when the signatures of Bhaiyalal and Hiralal were obtained in the plaintiffs ledger on 3rd September, 1949, acknowledging the suit amount as due from them.
S. Bindra S. L. Chhibber, with him for the appellants.
34,000 principal, and Rs.
32 of 1951.
P. Sinha K. B. Asthana, with him for the respondents.
2,626 interest, due on foot of mutual dealings.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff respondents in the companyrt of the district judge of Umaria, for recovery of Rs.
A certificate for leave to appeal to this Court was granted as the case fulfilled all the companyditions and requirements in force relating to appeals to the Supreme Court.
March 12.
The suit was dismissed by the district judge but was decreed on appeal by the Judicial Commissioner of Vindhya Pradesh.
