1925 (4) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules for Plaintiff on liquor shop license fee payment dispute. Defendant fails to prove payment; liable for specified amount.

Beni Versus Bisan Dayal and another

The Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff regarding the payment for the liquor shop license fee. Defendant No. 1 failed to prove he had paid the required ... - Issues:Claim of payment for liquor shop license fee, liability of surety, ownership of paid money, recovery of amount for articles taken, validity of set-off claim, limitation period for claims.Analysis:1. The case revolved around a liquor shop license where Defendant No. 2 failed to make payments, leading Defendant No. 1 to request the Government to allow him to take over the shop. Plaintiff, related to Defendant No. 2, agreed to be responsible for payments if Defendant No. 2 defaulted. Plaintiff claimed to have paid the January 1921 kist, but Defendant No. 1 argued the money was his. The Small Cause Court ruled in favor of Defendant No. 1, stating he paid the kist. Plaintiff contested this decision, providing a receipt from the Government Treasury as evidence of payment.2. The Court analyzed the evidence and found Defendant No. 1's testimony insufficient to prove he paid the kist. The Court highlighted that entries in account books alone are not conclusive evidence. Defendant No. 1's failure to provide independent proof of payment led the Court to rule in favor of the plaintiff. The Court emphasized that Defendant No. 1's claim that Defendant No. 2 paid the kist did not prove payment to the plaintiff.3. The Court further addressed Defendant No. 1's claim for the kists of February and March 1921. Despite Defendant No. 1's argument that he paid these kists, the Court found the claim for February kist time-barred based on the date of filing the written statement. The Court differentiated this case from a previous judgment on equitable set-off, emphasizing that Defendant No. 1's counterclaim for the kists was not a valid defense. The Court dismissed the claim for February kist but allowed the claim for March kist, as it was within the limitation period.4. Additionally, the Court addressed a separate suit by the plaintiff against Defendant No. 1 for the price of certain articles. Defendant No. 1 did not dispute this claim, leading the Court to reverse the lower court's decision and decree Defendant No. 1 to pay the plaintiff the specified amount for the articles taken. The Court also directed the parties to share costs based on their success in the respective claims.