TMI Blog1925 (4) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... term of the license, and the Government did accordingly. However, as plaintiff was related to Defendant No. 2, it was agreed between the parties that Defendant No. 1 should permit Defendant No. 2 to carry on the liquor shop and that plaintiff should be responsible for payment of Government demand if Defendant No. 2 failed to pay it in time. It was further agreed between the parties that if plaintiff paid the Government demand, Defendant No. 1 should recover it from Defendant No. 2 and pay it to the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that he paid the kist for January 1921, viz., ₹ 108, on 24th January 1921 and he brought a suit for recovery of this sum together with interest thereon at ₹ 2 per cent, per mensem from both the defendants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No. 1 a decree for ₹ 335-14-0 against the plaintiff after allowing the latter deduction for the price of articles taken by the former from the latter and dismissed plaintiff's Suit No. 1286 of 1924 as well. Plaintiff has now come up in revision. 5. It is urged on behalf of the plaintiff that the Small Cause Court was wrong in holding that Defendant No. 1 had proved that the money paid for the January kist of 1921 was his money. In my opinion, this contention is sound and must prevail. The kist for January 1921 was admittedly paid into the Government Treasury by the plaintiff and the Treasury Officer passed a receipt for the same in his favour and he has filed it in Court (Ex. P-1). Under these circumstances, the onus lay heav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ependent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate and as no such evidence has been adduced in this case the Court below was wrong in holding that Defendant No. 1 had paid money to plaintiff for payment of the kist for January 1921. Plaintiff's claim for that kist should have been decreed against Defendant No, 1 as it is admitted that he had realized the amount due for that kist from Defendant No. 2 and was liable under an agreement between the parties to pay that amount to the plaintiff. 7. It is contended that the fact that Defendant No. 2 paid the January kist to Defendant No. 1 shows that Defendant No. 1 must have paid money for payment of that kist into the treasury to the plaintiff. This inference is wholly fallac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred his counterclaim and not the date on which plaintiff instituted his suit. According to this view his claim for recovery of the February kist, which he paid on 21st February 1921, and for which he preferred his claim on 18th March 1921, must stand dismissed. His claim for recovery of the January kist fails because I have held that plaintiff and not he (Defendant No. 1) paid that kist. The claim for recovery of the March kist, which was paid by Defendant No. 1 on 31st March 1921, is within time and must be allowed. The amount due to plaintiff for the January list of 1921 plus interest thereon at ₹ 2 per cent, per mensem comes to ₹ 185-12-0 and that due to Defendant No. 1 for the March kist of 1921 plus interest thereon at &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
