JUDGEMENT :-The short point for decision in this appeal is as to whether the document in suit is a promissory note or acknowledgement of liability with an agreement to pay.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that firm Chunni Lal Tukki Mal who are the appellants in the present appeal filed the suit against another firm Mukat Lal Ram Chandra on the allegation that the plaintiffs firm was a joint Hindu family firm carrying on business in grain in Eazar Puranagani at Sikandarabad and the defendants' firm also carried on business in grain, Gur etc., at Sikandarabad district Bulandshahr. It was alleged that the defendant No. 2 a branch firm of defendant No. 1 carried on business at Ghaziabad, Meerut. It was alleged that the defendant Ram Chandra and one deceased Mukal Lal were the partners of the above mentioned firms and the defendants Ratan Lal and Rameshwar Dayal carried on the business of the firm Ratan Lal Rameshwar Daval at Ghaziabad, Meerut. for and on behalf of defendant No. 1 and that the plaintiff carried on its business in forward delivery transactions in Gur and other commodities through the commission agencies of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. These transactions resulted in certain profits to the plaintiff and on 28th December, 1952 there was an accounting between the parties in which the defendants Ratan Lal and Rameshwar Daval accepted the liability on their behalf as well as on behalf of other defendants to the extent of Rs. 35447/8/9 and agreed to pay the same in six monthly instalment of Rs 1800/- each the first instalment falling due n 30th June, 1953. This agreement was reduced to writing and since the defendants did not pay the instalments as agreed hence the suit for the recovery of the instalments due at the date of suit. Interest at the rate of Rs 6/- per annum was also claimed.

3. The claim of the plaintiff firm was contested by the defendants. Firm Mukat Lal Ram Chandra defendant No. 1, Mukat Lal defendant No. 3 and Ram Chandra defendant No. 4 filed one written statement while Ratan Lal Rameshwar Dayal filed another written statement Defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 who filed the first written statement asserted that no money was outstanding against the contesting defendants payable to the plaintiff nor was there any accounting or agreement between them and the plaintiff nor did they accept any money payable from them it was further denied that defendants Ratan Lal Rameshwar Dayal had any authority from them to accept any liability on their behalf hence they were not bound by any agreement or acceptance of liability by Ratan Lal Rameshwar Dayal defendants. The suit was alleged to be barred by time. It was further alleged that the document relied upon by the plaintiff was a promissory note and being deficiently stamped could not be made the basis of the suit.

4. The other written statement filed by defendants Ratan Lal Rameshwar Dayal mainly contested on the ground that the document relied on by the plaintiff was got executed by them under undue influence, threat and pressure it was alleged that in fact no accounting at all had taker place nor any amount was found due against them and in favour of the plaintiff. They joined hands with the other defendants in denying that they had any authority to execute any promissory note for the firm defendant No. 2. They also pleaded that the document relied on by the plaintiff being a promissory note and being deficiently stamped could not form the basis of the suit.

5. On the pleadings of the parties trial court framed necessary issues and decided most of the issues in favour of the plaintiff, but having found that the document in dispute was a promissory note and being deficiently stamped was inadmissible in evidence as such dismissed the suit.

6. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court and before the lower appellate court the main point urged was Whether the document relied on by the plaintiff was promissory note or an acknowledgment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document