Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.

Allahabad High Court
Musammat Main A And Anr. vs Madho Prasad And Ors. on 14 April, 1914
Equivalent citations: 24 Ind Cas 105
Author: Tudball


Tudball, J.

1. This application in revision arises out of a suit brought to recover a sum of Rs. 400 principal with Rs. 30 interest by the plaintiff in the Court of Small Causes at Benares against three defendants Madho Prasad, Sita Ram and Raja Ram. The plaintiffs’ case was that the sum of Rs. 400 had been deposited with the three defendants who constituted a firm. Raja Ram admitted the plaintiffs’ claim, Madho Prasad contested it and Sita Ram was absent. Raja Ram and Sita Ram are own brothers. Madho Prasad is a cousin. As against Raja Ram the Court decreed the claim in full. As against Madho Prasad who contested the suit it held that only half the claim was proved, that only Rs. 200 had been deposited and not Rs. 400 as claimed by the plaintiff. In respect of Sita Ram the Court held that as he was the brother of Raja Ram and the latter had confessed judgment, he was liable with his brother for the amount claimed. As a result the Court gave a decree to the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 200 plus interest recoverable from all the three defendants and a decree for the balance as against Raja Ram and Sita Ram.

2. The present application is pressed only as regards the decree against Sita Ram, and the point urged is that as Sita Ram was absent the plaintiff was only entitled to a decree as against him for the amount which she was able to prove and as the Court held on the contention raised by Madho Prasad that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing her claim only to the extent of Rs. 200, no larger sum should have been decreed against the absent defendant, specially as the Court in its judgment came to the conclusion that Raja Ram and the plaintiff were in collusion. It is quite clear, on the lower Court’s finding, that Sita Ram should not have been held liable for more than Rs. 200. I, therefore, vary the decree of the Court below to this extent that the decree for Rs. 238-10 as against all defendants will stand, but the decree for the balance will be only against Raja Ram and not against Sita Ram. No other point is pressed. 1, therefore, allow the application to this extent with proportionate costs to the applicant Sita Ram only.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.346 seconds.