Wanchoo, C. J.—These are two connected appeals from the same judgment of the District Judge, Jodhpur, in a suit for money. Appeal No. 38 has been filed by Maharaja Ran Bahadur Singh against Rao Raja Hanuwant Singh, while appeal No. 45 is a cross-appeal by Rao Raja Hanuwant Singh against Maharaja Ran Bahadur Singh. We shall deal with them together as they arise from the same judgment.

2. The suit, out of which these appeals have arisen, was filed by Rao Raja Hanuwant Singh against Maharaja Ran Bahadur Singh, and his brother Maharaja Laxman Singh. The case of the plaintiff was that there were money dealings between him and Maharaja Bijai Singh, father of the defendants. On the 30th of September, 1945, Maharaja Bijai Singh, after checking the accounts, struck a balance amounting to Rs. 41,188/3/7 and 6 mohars as due to the plaintiff, and made an entry in his own hand to the effect and signed the plaintiffs bahee. Interest was settled at 6%. This suit was brought for principal and interest plus the price of 6 mohars, amounting in all to Rs. 56,601/14/6. By the time the suit was brought Maharaja Bijai Singh was dead, and therefore his sons were sued on the basis of the account stated, and a decree for Rs. 55,968/14/6 and 6 mohars or their price which was fixed at Rs. 633/- was prayed for.

3. The suit was resisted by Maharaja Ran Bahadur Singh. His case was that there were never any money dealings between the plaintiff and his father, and that the plaintiff was never in a position to advance such large amounts to his father. On the other hand, it was said that the plaintiff and his entire family were being supported by his father for the last 3 J or 40 years, and under such circumstances there was no question of any money dealings between the plaintiff and his father. Besides this, it was said that the documents, on which the plaintiff relied, had not been signed by Maharaja Bijai Singh, and that in any case they were mere acknowledgements, and therefore could not be the basis of the suit, and that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. Maharaja Laxman Singh filed a separate written statement in which he partially admitted the claim of the plaintiff. He, however, said that he was only given a maintenance allowance, and therefore the money borrowed by his father could not be realised from him.

5. The following five issues were framed on the pleas raised by the defendants:—

(1) Whether the deceased Maharaja Bijai Singh put his signatures on Exs. P1 and P?

(2) Whether Exs. P1 and P2 were without consideration?

(3) Whether Exs. P1 and P2 were mere acknowledgments, and therefore the suit was not maintainable on such documents?

(4) Whether the suit was time-barred?

(5) Whether defendant No. 2 was not liable to answer the plaintiffs claim?

6. At a later stage, the trial court struck out issue No. (2). Issues 1, 3 and 4 were decided against the defendants. A decree was passed against Maharaja Ran Bahadur Singh only as it was held that Maharaja Laxman Singh was not liable. Appeal No. 38 is by Maharaja Ran Bahadur Singh. It assails the entire decree passed by the court below against him. Appeal No. 45 is by the plaintiff, and is directed only against the refusal of the court below to allow pendente lite and future interest.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has confined his argument in the first instance to the question whether issue No. 2 was rightly struck off by the trial court. He contends that the trial court was not right in striking off that issue, and the result has been that evidence has not been admitted on that issue as it should have been. The order striking off the issue was passed on the 30th of January, 1953. The court held that as the plaintiffs claim was based on accounts stated and as the defendant however alleged fraud or mistake the accounts could not be reopened, and the question of consideration could not be agitated. It, therefore, held that issue No. 2 was redundant and struck it off, and ordered that evidence on other issues s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document