LexHIRALAL AND OTHERS versus BADKULAL AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
195li Ganpat Rai Hira Lal and Another v. Aggarwal Chamber of Oonimerce Ltd. 758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953) the appeals are not competent is, in' om opinion, erroneous. The result is that Appeal No. 152 of .1951 is dis- missed with costs throughout, while Appeals Nos. 167 and 167 A of 19.51 are allowed with costs throughout. Appeal No. 12.5 dismissed. Appeals Nos. 167 and 167 A .allowed. Ghandrasekhara Agents for the a.pp~llants in Appeals Nos. 167 AiyarJ. and 167A: Mohan Behan Lal. 1958 March 12. Agent for the appellant in Appeal No. 152 : Kitn- dan Lal Mehta. Agent for respondents in Appeals Nos. 167 and 167 A: Naunit Lal. Agent for respondent in Appeal No. 152: Mohan Behari Lal. HIRALAL AND OTHERS v. BADKULAL AND OTHERS. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and BHAGWATI JJ.] Acknowledgment-Whether gives fresh cause of action-Practice -Party in possession of documentary evidence-Duty to produce. Where the defendants who had dealings with the plaintiffs for several years signed the following entry in the plaintiffs' ac- count book underneath the earlier entries: "After adjusting the aceounts Rs. 34,000 found correct pay- able". Held, that this amounted to an unqualified acknowledgment of liability to pay and implied a promise to pay and could be made the basis of the suit and gave rise to a fresh cause of action. Maniram v. Seth Rup Chand (33 I.A. 165), Fateh Chn.nd v. Ganga Singh II.L.R. 10 Lab. 745) and Kahan Chand Dularam v. Daya1al Amritlal (I.L.R. 10 Lah. 748) relied on. Gh11lam M11rtuza v. Fasih1mnissa (I.L.R. 57 All. 434) overruled. It is not a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the court written evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the. issues in controversy and tc rely upon the mere doctrine of onus of proof. Murugesam Pillai v. Manickavasaka Pandara (44 I.A. 99) referred to. 8.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 759 CIVIL Ar°FELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 168 of 1952. Appeal from a Judgment and Decree dated 23rd July, 1951, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Vindhya Pradesh, in Civil First Appeal No. 26 of 1951 arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated 14th .:\farch, 1951, of the CouPt of the District Judge, Umaria, in Case No. 32 of 1951. N. S. Bindra (S. L. Chhibber, with him) for the appellants. S. P. Sinha (K. B. Asthana, with him) for the respondents. 1953. March 12. 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 court of the district judge of Umaria, for recovery of Rs. 34,000 principal, and Rs. 2,626 interest, due on foot of mu~ual dealings. The suit was dismissed by the district judge but was decreed on appeal by the Judicial Commissioner of Vindhya Pradesh. A certificate for leave to appeal to this Court was grant- ed as the case fulfilled all the conditions and require- ments in force relating to appeals to the Supreme Court. The defendants did not admit the claim and it was pleaded that no accounts were explained to fihem when the signatures of Bhaiyalal and Hiralal were obtained in the plaintiffs' ledger on 3rd September, 1949, acknowledging the snit amount as due from them. It was further pleaded that no suit could be based merely on an acknowledgment of the debt. In para- graph 4 of the written statement it was alleged that the plaintiff No. 2 Dipchand having threatened to bring a suit against defendants 1 and 2 whose finan- cial position was bad and having represented that plaintiff No. 1 Badkulal would be angry and abuse plaintiff No. 2, and having assured on oath by placing his hand on a deity in a temple that no suit shall be 1953 lliralal and Others v. Badhulal and Others. 1953 Hiralal and 0th""'. v. Badknlal and Othe1·s. 760 SUPREME COURT REPOR'rS [1953] brought, and that amouni of interest wouid 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 foe defendants were not bound by these signatures. In paragraph 9 of the written statement it was alleged th'at in• fact Hs. 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. Issue 1 framed by the district judge,was in these terms : "Did the defenda
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.