A claim based on a disputed promissory note fails if the plaintiff's evidence is extraordinary, lacks corroboration, is contradicted by their own witnesses, and is unsupported by business records, particularly when the timing of the suit suggests a fraudulent scheme.

Sir John Edge :-

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree, dated the 3rd December, 1918, of the High Court at Allahabad, which reversed a decree, dated the 21st February, 1916, of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Benares and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs are Data Ram Jani, Kirpa Ram Jani and Ganga Ram Jani, sons of Adit Ram Jani, deceased. Ganga Ram Jani was minor when the suit was brought.

The suit was wrought on the 27th March, 1915, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares to obtain a decree against the defendant for Rs. 29,818 principal and interest and future interest. It was alleged in the plaint that Adit Ram Jani, who is dead and was the father of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiff Data Ram Jani, in 1911 and 1912 lent to the defendant, partly in cash and partly in the value of ornaments, various sums of money on promissory notes given by her to them, and that on the 28th March, 1912, she, in consideration of the moneys then due by her to them and a sum of Rs. 1,000 then lent by them to her, gave to them her promissory note for Rs. 21,925 and interest, and that the cause of action arose on the 28th March 1912.

The defence was an absolute denial of these allegations, and the defendant specifically denied that she ever received any money or ornaments from the plaintiffs or their father under promissory notes or in any other way; and said that she had never executed any promissory notes in their favour and had never had any money dealings with them. Briefly stated the defence was that the claim was a false and fraudulent claim and that the promissory note sued upon was a forgery. The issue was upon the plaintiffs.

Adit Ram Jani belonged to a Gujrati Hindu family of Nagar Brahmans, which carried on business as a firm at Benares. The plaintiff, Data Ram Jani and his father, on their own money-lending and pawnbroking which was separate from the family business as a firm, drawing upon the firm for such moneys as they required; they finally separated from the firm and on partition they were found to be indebted to the family business of the firm to the extent of Rs. 10,000 or Rs. 12,000.

It has not been proved when the partition actually took place, but it appears that it must have been after the 28th March, 1912 if not shortly before that date. If the evidence of the plaintiff, Data Ram Jani, who was the leading witness for the plaintiffs, is to be believed in any respect, there is no entry in the books of the firm as to the alleged loans to the defendant and he and his father kept no books relating to their separate businesses.

The defendant is a Purdanashin lady of a family of Gujrati Sipahi Nagar Brahmans. Her paternal grandfather was Munshi Chunni Lal, who had two sons, Munshi Pannah Lal, who was the defendant's father and died when she was three years old, and Raja Munshi Madho Lal. Munshi Chunni Lal had been possessed of zamindari property. Zamindari property of Chunni Lal came to the defendant through her father. She had a zamindari and banking business, which was carried on her behalf, under the supervision and management of her uncle Raja Munshi Madho Lal in a house in Muhalla Nandan Sahu in Benares, which was known as the kothi of Chunni Lal. The business of Raja Munshi Madho LaL was carried on in Muhalla Chan Khamba.

She had last lived in the kothi of Chunni Lal about ten years before 1912. Her private residence was in Muhalla Sudeshari, another Muhalla of Benares. She was a wealthy woman, owning zamindari property and a good business. Owing to the adoption by her of a son, disputes arose between her and her uncle. She wished her zamindari property to be recorded in her name, he objected, and he ceased to pay over to her her income from her business. She was compelled to bring a suit against her uncle, and in that suit her uncle was ordered to pay to her during the pendency of the suit an allowance of Rs. 556 a month. Her uncle also brought a suit against her. She thus became involved in litigation