Bapna, J. —This is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of money.

2. Respondent-Ghisalal instituted the present suit on 25th August, 1951, against the appellant Mahant Gopaldas on the allegation that the said Mahant Gopaldas borrowed Rs. 1475/- from the plaintiff on 15th September, 1948, for the purpose of providing bhog hharach for the temple of Shri Janki Ballabhji, of which the defendant was the Mahant, and promised to repay the same on the 14th of January, 1949, but as he failed to pay the same, the suit had to be Instituted for recovery of the principal amount Rs. 1475/ and interest, Rs. 285/2/-. total being Rs. 1733/2/-.

3. The defendant denied the execution of the Ruqqa or the taking of the loan, and pleaded that one Kandas was the Adhikari of the temple, who had been turned out and the Ruqqa had been fabricated with his assistance. The defendant specifically raised the issue how the defendant was personally sought to be liable when the purpose of the loan was stated to be the provision of bhog rag of the temple. The plaintiff made it clear through his advocate on more than one occasion that the suit was against the defendant in his personal capacity, and no claim was sought to be enforced against the property of the temple.

4. The trial court, after evidence, dismissed the suit, but on appeal the learned District Judge of Sikar by judgment of 8th August, 1952, held that the execution of she document Ex P.-2, the Ruqqa dated 15.9.48 by the defendant, had been duly proved. He also held that the consideration of the Ruqqa had been paid to the defendant. He accordingly gave a decree for the amount sued against the defendant personally, and it was mentioned that it would not take effect upon the property of the temple. The defendant has come in second appeal.

5. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the lower court had committed an error of law in holding that the document had been proved to have been executed by the defendant when there were no signatures of the defendant affixed on the document. The document Ex. P. 2, leaving out surplusage, may be translated as under:—

"Benedictions by Mahant Maharaj Gopaldas to Ghisalal. Whereas Rs. 1475/- have been taken on loan for the purpose of meeting Bhog expanses (of the temple of Shri Janki Ballabhji) at 6% per annum, and this money will be repaid on Pes Sudi 15, Svt. 2005. Dated Bhad Sudi 12 Svt. 20005(15 9-48).

Sd/—KALYAN BAKSH (scribe) as per orders of Mahant (Maharaj,

Sd/—POKAKDAS (witness) as per orders of Mahant Maharaj,

6. At the top of this document is the word Sahi, and there is a seal "May Shri Janki Ballabhji protect, Sevag Mahant Gopaldas."

7. P. W. 4 Kalyan Baksh scribe said that he was an employee of the defendant during the year Svt. 2004-2005, and executed Ex. P-2 the Ruqqa on instructions of the defendant, and the defendant himself scribed the word sahi on the document. In cross-examination he said that he used to write the account books of the temple, and this money of the Ruqqa may have been entered in the account books of the temple, Kandas P. W. 5 said that he was present at the time when the plaintiff gave Rs. 1475/- to the defendant, and on instructions of the defendant Kalyan Baksh wrote out Ex. P-2. The defendant by his own pen wrote sahi on top of the document, and affixed his seal on it. Pokardas, P.W. 2, said that he was an employee of the defendant. He attested Ex. P. 2, but did so on instructions of Kandas. The document did nor bear sahi or the seal at that time. He did not know the plaintiff, as he had seen him before. Fateh Mohammad P. W. 3 stated that he was present at the time of the transaction between the parties. The plaintiff gave Rs. 1475/- to the defendant, and defendant himself affixed his sahi and seal on the document Ex. P.-2, which was written by Kalyan Baksh on instructions of the defendant. On behalf of the defendant two witnesses Ramdev and Ramnath, were produced to the effect that the defendant Mahant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document