Modi, J.— This is an appeal by the defendant Bhagirath in a suit brought against him by the plaintiff Mst. Gulab Kanwar on behalf of herself and her sons Sampatchand and Suratsingh who are minors. The suit was principally based upon a promissory note and has been decreed with respect to it by the Senior Civil Judge Jodhpur but the rest of their claim stands dismissed.

2. The case disclosed by the plaintiffs is that there were money dealings between Nauratanmal deceased, grandfather of the minor plaintiffs, and the defendant, and the latter had also taken certain kothas on rent from the deceased and was in occupation thereof. It is said that after the death of Nauratanmal, on the 15th October, 1951, accounts were gone into between the parties on Migsar Sudi 15 Svt. 2008 (corresponding to the 13th December, 1951) and a sum of Rs. 9701/7/- was found due against the defendant. The latter expressed his inability to repay the amount found due. Thereupon the old Khata was squared up, a sum of Rs 8/7/-was paid in cash by the defendant, and so for the balance of Rs. 9700/- he executed a promissory note in favour of Mst. Gulabkanwar, and this amount was stated in the promissory note to have been received by the defendant in cash. It was further stipulated in the promissory note that the defendant would pay interest at the rate of 7 annas percent per mensem. The plaintiffs eventually brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 9700/-principal and Rs 75/3/ as interest and Rs. 673/9/- as arrears of rent, amounting in all to Rs. 10448/12/-- As was subsequently made clear by Mst. Gulabkanwar, the debt covered, by the promissory note (and the kothas) had fallen to the share of Nauratanmal at a family partition, and on his minor grand-sons Sampatchand and Suratsingh (their father Dhanpat Singh having predeceased Nauratanmal) became the owners thereof and the promissory note had been executed in Mst. Gulabkanwars name because her sons were minors and she was their natural guardian. Mst. Gulabkanwar also stated in her replication that if the money due on the promissory note was paid to her sons, she would have no objection whatsoever and that she would be prepared to give a complete discharge to the defendant both on her own behalf if required and also on behalf of her sons as their natural guardian. The defendant admitted the execution of the promissory note but contended that he had not received any consideration for it and, therefore, the plaintiffs suit was bound to fail. The defendant further pleaded that the suit as brought by the plaintiffs was bad for mis-joinder of plaintiffs and causes of action. He also raised certain other pleas but they are not material for the purposes of the present appeal and, therefore, we do not propose to mention them.

3. The trial court dismissed the suit so far as it related to the arrears of rent but decreed it for a sum of Rs. 97C0/- principal plus Rs. 75/3/- as interest till the date of suit minus a sum of Rs. 66/- which has been held to be the price of certain goods received by the plaintiffs from the defendant about which there is no dispute in the present appeal.

4. It is not disputed before us that the promissory note upon which the present suit was founded had teen executed by the defendant. The defendants main contention in this appeal, however, is that the suit as brought by the plaintiffs was not competent. Learned counsel put his argument in this way. His contention was that the minors had no right to bring the suit in law as they were not the holders of the promissory note and it had been admittedly executed in favour of their Mother Mst. Gulabkanwar. As for Mst. Gulabkanwar it was contended that though she was the holder and could bring the suit on the basis of the promissory note, it was equally clear that no consideration whatsoever had proceeded from her with respect to the promisory note and, therefore, the plaintiffs suit was also bound to fail as filed by her. It was also argued that as the right

Click Here to Read the rest of this document