Counsel for the appellant in all fairness did number question the authority of Ram Ratan Gupta to bind the firm of the appellant.
9,00,000 to Rs.
It was suggested to Padampat Singhania that the words de posit karaya in the roznamcha entry were number written at the same sitting.
Some of the partners of the appellant and the respondent in the year 1942 were companymon.
First, the account books were shown in cross examination of Padampat Singhania and question were asked on the same.
The Singhania and the Gupta groups were also both interested in the business of Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills, The evidence on behalf of the respondent is that Lakshmi Rattan Cotton Mills a limited Company acted as financiers and bankers of India Supplies.
The Singhania group and the Gupta group were the partners of India Supplies.
The respondents partner Padampat Singhania gave oral evidence and substantiated the terms of the letter and the respondents case.
The respondents case in short was that the respondent on 30 September, 1942 deposited a sum of Rs.
4,00,000 by the respondent with the appellant under an agreement that the same would be paid on demand.
The High Court heard the suit and on 3 August, 1965 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent.
Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills was a debtor to the respondent for the approximate sum of Rs.
4,00,000 was withdrawn on 30 September, 1942 by the appellant from the respondent as a banker and along with the interest from time to time the amount of Rs.
The respondent companytended that Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 was the relevant Article because if was a case of money deposited under an agreement that it was payable on demand and therefore the limitation would companymence from the date of demand and the suit was filed within three years from the demand.
4,00.000.
Secondly, both Padampat Singhania and Gopi Kishan Saraugi spoke of the proper maintenance and keeping of books of account and that it was number possible to arrange the presence of the writer of the entry.
4,00,000 and number an instance of the sum of Rs.
Fifthly, Ex.
4,00,000.
Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills demanded the sum of Rs.
4,00,000 was unsecured loan from the respondent.
The roznalucha entry was as follows 4,00,000 India Supply Ke nam Asoj Badi Chhat 30 9 42 Lakshmiratan Cotton Mill Ki Chithi se apke nam mada deposit karaya panna 2486.
The original entries were called for from the High Court.
Padampat Singhania said that the entry of Rs.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 3, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Original Suit No.
It is also significant that when the respondent demanded the money by a letter dated 27 April 1953 Ex.
Thereafter by an order dated 12 May, 1964 of the High Court at Allahabad the suit was transferred to the High Court in its original ,civil jurisdiction.
Padampat Singhania denied that, Counsel for the appellant companytended that in the absence of Gopi Kishan Jaipuria the account books were number proved.
7 the appellant in their reply dated 5/6 May, 1953 Ex.
4,00,000 should be debited to India Supplies as deposit at the usual rate of interest as agreed upon.
The suit was filed in the companyrt of the First Civil Judge, Kanpur.
At the trial the issues were first whether the respondent deposit ed the sum of Rs.
The respondent also relied on the pass book entry being Ex A 4 which shows that a sum of Rs.
The respondent was to place to the credit of Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills a sum of Rs.
4,00,000 with India Supplies to wipe out the indebtedness of India Supplies to Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills.
A 4 showed that a sum of Rs.
was proved by Gopi Kishan Saraugi a munim of the plaintiff.
There is evidence that Ram Ratan Gupta looked after the business of the appellant and acted on behalf of the firm of the appellant in ordinary mercantile transaction.
At one stage in the proceedings there was a companytroversy as to whether Rain Ratan Gupta had authority to bind the appellant by the letter dated 29 September, 1942.
4,00,000 was debited to India Supplies as deposit.
Disputes and differences arose between the two groups thereafter.
The witness proved the Khata, the raznamcha and the nakalbahi entries.
The letter was as follows Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat Kothl, Cawnpore.
In cross examination of Padampat Singhania questions were asked about the rokar, khata, nakal bahi and roznamcha entries.
4,11,367.92 with interest and companyts.
In 1944 there was an arbitration award.
4,00,000 being deposited by the respondent with the appellant under an agreement that the same would be paid on demand.
The rival companytention of the appellant was that it was money lent under an agreement that it was payable on demand and the loan was made on 30 December, 1942 and therefore the suit number having been filed within 3 years from the date of the loan under Article 59 was barred by limitation.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd R. Ratan Gupta.
4,00,000 stood with the appellant in the deposit account.
Secondly, it was said that there was never any payment of money in cash and adjustment entries were made in the books of the respondent.
It is number open to the appellant to companyplain of lack of proof of account books when the documents are shown to the witness in cross examination.
Padampat Singhania was the person on behalf of the respondent who carried on the negotiations.
4,00,000 in its account with the respondent thus reducing the indebtedness of Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills from Rs.
5,00,000.
4,00,000.
The letter further shows that the terms were agreed to by the partners of the firm, namely, the partners of India Supplies and of ale respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He also said that credit and debit entries were made in the roznamcha, Padampat Singhania said that the entries were made by Gopi Kishan Jaipuria who was in a dying companydition at the time the witness gave evidence.
Suggestion of tampering is a serious one.
A 5 was accepted by the appellants witness Ram Ratan Gupta the author of the letter.
4,00,000 with the appellant and secondly whether the suit was barred by time.
There was just a substitution of the creditor debitor relationship by substituting the respondent in place of Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills as the creditor.
The appellants did number examine themselves and did number 1 63 I.A. 279.
The roznamcha entry.
On the companytrary, the companyrectness of the, letter EX.
Fourthly, monies were required by the appellant for his own business because Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills refused to help the appellant any more.
4,00,000 was number recorded in the daily cash book but was recorded in the roznanicha.
This is unacceptable for two reasons.
The respondent filed the suit on 16 May, 1953 against the appellant for the recovery of Rs.
In the year 1942 Kailashpat Singhania and Pushpa Devi wife of Lakshmipat Singhania were partners of India Supplies along with the defendants.
The intrinsic evidence in the letter is that the sum of Rs.
His evidence was that the books were systematically kept on mahaj ani system in companynection with the business.
The other books of account of the plaintiff are khata ledger and nakalbahi journal .
Counsel on behalf of the appellant companytended that the use of the word deposit by itself occurring either in the roznamcha or in the letter dated 29 September, 1942 written by Ram Ratan Gupta would number be decisive of the question whether it was a case of deposit of the sum of Rs.
It was said by companynsel for the appellant that there were six principal reasons to indicate that, it was a case of an ordinary loan of Rs.
4,00,000 with M s India Supplies whereof the appellants were the partners on the companydition that interest would be payable 7/9 per cent per month and that the respondent would be entitled to withdraw the deposit on demand.
Defendant Ram Janki Devi is the wife of Ram Ratan Gupta and the other defendant Lal Ram Gopal Gupta is a brother of Ram Ratan Gupta and married Padampat Singhanias sisters daughter.
Thereafter India Supplies proposed that the respondent should deposit a sum of Rs.
The respondent accepted the said proposal and thereafter a letter dated 29 September, 1942 was written by Ram Ratan Gupta head of the Gupta group on behalf of India Supplies to the respondent recording the agreement that a sum of Rs.
One of the books of account of the respondent, namely, the roznamcha daily book under the entry 30 September, 1942 shows that according to the letter of India Supplies the sum of Rs.
2151 of 1966.
I of 1964.
The Singhanias went out of both India Supplies and Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills and the Gupta groups carried on both the businesses.
Dear Sirs, As per my talk with Sir Padampat I shall thank you to credit a sum of S. 4 lacs Rupees four lacs only to the account of Messrs Lakshmi ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., and debit the same to the account of India Supplies as deposit at the usual rate of interest as agreed upon by the partners of the said firm.
give any evidence challenging the oral testimony of the respondent s partner.
4,00,000 was deposited in the name of India Supplies.
The suggestion was that there was interpolation of the words deposit karaya in the roznamcha entry.
6 totally denied the claim.
Thirdly, monies were number given nationally for the companyvenience of the respondent banker.
K. Sen, Rameshwar Nath and Swaranjit Sodhi, for the respondent.
The words debited as deposit, were criticised by companynsel for the appellant to be meaningless.
The evidence was companycluded before the Civil Judge, Kanpur.
V. Gupte and J., P. Gopal, for the appellants.
The balance sheet of the appellant as on 30 June, 1943 being Ex.
4,11,367.92.
The Judgment of Court was delivered by Ray, J. This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree dated 3 August, 1965 of the High Court of Allahabad decreeing the, respondents suit for the sum of Rs.
In cross examination of Gopi Kishan Saraugi it was suggested that the entry under the date 30 September, 1942 in the roznamcha was number written at the same time.
