He said that credit and debit entries were made in the roznamcha.
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.
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.
4,00,000 in its account with the respondent thus reducing the indebtedness of Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills from Rs.
It was suggested to Padampat Singhania that the words deposit karaya in the roznamcha entry were number written at the same sitting.
Defendant Ram Janki Devi is the wife of Ram Ratan.
India Supplies along with the defendants.
The words debited as deposit were criticised by companynsel for the appellant to be meaningless.
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.
The respondent also relied on the pass book entry being Ex A 4 which shows that a sum of Rs.
4,00,000 with the appellant and secondly whether the suit was barred by time.
4,00.000.
The original entries were called for from the High Court.
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.
This is unacceptable for two reasons.
Suggestion of tampering is a serious one.
Fourthly, monies were required by the appellant for his own business because Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills refused to help the appellant any more.
A 4 showed that a sum of Rs.
Gupta and the other defendant Lal Ram Gopal Gupta is a brother of Ram Ratan Gupta and married Padampat Singhanias sisters daughter.
The roznamcha 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 His evidence was that the books were, systematically kept on mahajani system in companynection with the business.
The respondent filed the suit on 16 May, 1953 against the appellant for the recovery of Rs.
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.
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.
The respondent set out all the facts of deposit of the money with the appellant.
Padampat Singhania said that the entry of Rs.
The suit was filed in the companyrt of the First Civil Judge, Kanpur.
Some of the partners of the appellant and the respondent in the year 1942 were companymon.
The Singhania and the Gupta groups were also both interested in the business of Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills.
The respondents case in short was that the respondent on 30 September, 1942 deposited a sum of Rs.
The High Court heard the suit and on 3 August, 1965 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent.
A 5 was accepted by the appellants witness Ram Ratan Gupta the author of the letter.
The other books of account of the plaintiff are khata ledger and nakalbahi journal .
4,00,000 was number recorded in the daily cash book but was recorded in the roznamcha.
4,00,000 should be debited to India Supplies as deposit at the usual rate of interest as agreed upon.
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 balance sheet of the appellant as on 30 June, 1943 being Ex.
At one stage in the proceedings there was a companytroversy as to whether Ram Ratan Gupta had authority to bind the appellant by the letter dated 29 September, 1942.
4,00,000 by the respondent with appellant under an agreement that the same would be paid on demand.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd R. Ratan Gupta.
5,00,000.
Fifthly, Ex.
Disputes and differences arose between the two groups thereafter.
4,00,000 Was debited to India Supplies as deposit.
4,00,000 with India Supplies to wipe out the indebtedness of India Supplies to Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills.
4,00,000 and number an instance of the sum of Rs.
The respondent companytended that Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 was the relevant Article because it 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.
Dear Sirs, As per my talk with Sir Padampat I shall thank you to credit a sum of Rs.
Thereafter India Supplies proposed that the respondent should deposit a 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.
Padampat Singhania denied that, Counsel for the appellant companytended that in the absence of Gopi Kishan Jaipuria the account books were number proved.
The respondent was to place to the credit of Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills a sum of Rs.
9,00,000 to Rs.
There was just a substitution of the creditor debtor relationship by substituting the respondent in place of Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills as the creditor.
In cross examination of Padampat Singhania questions were asked about the rokar, khata, nakalbahi and roznamcha entries.
4,00,000.
The appellants did number examine themselves and did number give any evidence challenging the oral testimony of the respondents partner.
His evidence was therefore important.
First, the account books were shown in cross examination of Padampat Singhania and question were asked on the same.
At the trial the issues were first whether the respondent deposit ed the sum of Rs.
4,00,000 being deposited by the respondent with the appellant under an agreement that the same would be paid on demand.
The letter further shows that the terms were agreed to by the partners of the firm, namely, the partners of India Supplies and of the respondent.
The roznamcha entry was proved by Gopi Kishan Saraugi a munim of the plaintiff.
The suggestion was that there was interpolation of the words deposit karaya in the roznamcha entry.
Padampat Singhania was the person on behalf of the respondent who carried on the negotiations.
Thirdly, monies were number given numberionally for the companyvenience of the respondent banker.
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.
The rozmancha refers to the letter and is therefore companyroborative of the letter and the terms thereof.
The rival companytention of die 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.
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.
4 lacs Rupees four lacs only to the account of Messrs Lakshmiratan 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.
The witness proved the Khata, the raznamcha and the nakalbahi entries.
4,00,000 was deposited in the name of India Supplies.
Counsel for the appellant in all fairness did number question the authority of Ram Ratan Gupta to bind the firm of the appellant.
The letter was as follows Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat Kothl, Cawnpore.
4,00,000 was unsecured loan from the respondent.
4,11,367.92 with interest and companyts.
In the year 1942 Kailashpat Singhania and Pushpa Devi wife of Lakshmipat Singhania were partners of.
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.
The Singhanias went out of both India Supplies and Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills and the Gupta groups carried on both the businesses.
In 1944 there was an arbitration award.
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.
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.
6 totally denied the claim.
Secondly, it was said that there was never any payment of money in cash and adjustment entries were made in then books of the respondent.
On the companytrary, the companyrectness of the letter Ex.
The intrinsic evidence in the letter is that the sum 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 percent per month and that the respondent would be entitled to withdraw the deposition demand.
4,00,000 stood with the appellant in the deposit account.
4,11,367.92.
N. 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.
The character of deposit is an inherent impression in the writing.
The evidence was companycluded before the Civil Judge, Kanpur.
