JUDGMENT

D.D. Seth, J. - This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 2531/3/9 with pendentilite and future interest.

2. The plaintiffs' case was that Smt. Ram Dei the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had given a loan of Rs. 2,200/- to Mukundi Lal, defendant as karta and manager of the joint family firm Bhagwan Das Prayag Das on 5-3-1957 and that Mukundi Lal had executed a parcha for that amount in favour of Smt. Ram Dei. The plaintiffs' case was that they were the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, Ram Dei, who had executed a will in favour of the plaintiffs on 15-5-1933. The plaintiffs alleged that they demanded the amount from the defendant and since the defendant did not pay the amount, the plaintiffs had to file the suit.

3. The suit was contested by Mukundi Lal who pleaded that he had not taken any loan from Smt. Ram Dei on 5-3-1957 and that one Ram Nath Dalal had approached the defendant after the death of Lala Pachkauri Mal, father of the defendant, and showed a parcha for Rs. 2,200/- which, Ram Nath Dalal said, had been executed by defendant's father in favour of Smt. Ram Dei. The `defendant's case was that Ram Nath Dalal asked him to renew the parcha for Rs. 2,200/- and believing the Dalal, the defendant renewed the parcha on 20.7.1956 and, thereafter, changed the parcha from time to time. It was pleaded by the defendant that the parcha said to have been executed by Lala Pachkauri Mal was not returned to the defendant and that the defendant had learnt that Smt. Ram Dei had never advanced any amount to his father and that Ram Nadi Dalal had falsely represented to the defendant that Lala Pachkauri Mal had executed the parcha in favour of Smt. Ram Dei for Rs. 2,200/-. In fact the defendant's case was that the parcha shown to him by the Dalal was a forged parcha. The defendant denied that the plaintiffs were the heirs of Smt. Ram Dei and it was pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. The plaintiffs filed a replication on 8-11-1960 (paper No. 33-C) after obtaining leave of the Court. On 4-11-1960 the plaintiffs filed an application for leave to file replication and served a copy of that application on the defendant. The court allowed the application and permitted the plaintiffs to file a replication. Thereupon, on 10-7-1961 the defendant got his written statement amended but did not file any objection to the replication filed by the plaintiffs. Two additional issues were framed by the trial court on 14-9-1961 and the parties led evidence. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's father, Pachkauri Mal, had taken a loan from Smt. Ram Dei while the defendant denied that any such loan was taken. In the replication filed by the plaintiffs, it was made clear that Lala Pachkauri Mal was the karta of the joint family firm, Bhagwan Das Prayag Das, and that he took a loan of Rs. 2,200/- from the plaintiffs on 23-9-1955 through Ram Nath Dalal. It was further said in the replication that the contesting defendant, Mukundi Lal, had renewed the parcha for the first time on 20-7-1956 when he became karta of the joint family firm and that after renewal, all the old parchas were surrendered to the defendant. It was also urged that the parcha dated Bhando Sudi 7 filed by the defendant was forged one. It was also denied that the defendant had renewed the parcha on any false representation made by Ram Nath Dalal.

5. The trial court held that as there had been renovation by the defendant by execution of Ex. 6 in lieu of the old parchas, the suit was legally not maintainable. The trial court further held that old parcha had been renewed by the defendant. It also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to file the suit as a will had been executed in their favour by Smt. Ram Dei. It further held that Rs. 2,200/- had been taken on loan by the defendant's father with an agreement to pay interest to the plaintiffs but the plaintiffs were not entitled to any amount in view of the fin