Judgement

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 mutual 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 granted as the case fulfilled all the conditions and requirements in force relating to appeals to the Supreme Court.

2. The defendants did not admit the claim and it was pleaded that no accounts were explained to them when the signatures of Bhaiyalal and Hiralal were obtained in the plaintiff s ledger on 3-9-1949 acknowledging the suit amount as due from them. It was further pleaded that no suit could be based merely on an acknowledgment of the debt. In para. 4 of the written statement it was alleged that plaintiff 2 Dipchand having threatened to bring a suit against defendants 1 and 2 whose financial position was bad and having represented that plaintiff 1 Badkulal would be angry and abuse plaintiff 2 and having assured on oath by placing his hand on a deity in a temple t