JUDGMENT 1. - This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgement and decree of the Additional District Judge, Baran, dated 6.12.71 in a money suit. 2. The plaintiff came with the case that he purchased truck No. RJR 2590 from Bohra Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop on the condition that the truck shall be registered in his name on payment of Rs. 1750/- to the vendors. After the purchase of the truck, the plaintiff entered into a partnership with Bashir Ahmed & later on sold the truck to him for a sum of Rs. 5000/-. Bashir Ahmed agreed to pay the sale price amounting to Rs. 5000/- by instalments and executed an agreement on 14.1.67. This agreement is Ex. 1 on the record. Bashir Ahmed failed to pay the instalments as agreed upon between the parties and therefore, the plaintiff brought the suit for the recovery of Rs. 5000/- as principal and Rs. 347/- by way of interest and 80 P. as registration charges of the notice total Rs. 5347.80P. It was also mentioned in the plaint that Bashir Ahmed took the liability to pay the amount of Rs. 1750/- which the plaintiff was to pay to Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop at the time of the registration of the truck. During the pendency of the suit, Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop were also impleaded as defendants Nos. 2 and 3. They however did not put in their appearance and allowed the suit to proceed ex-parte. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 Bashir Ahmed. He inter alia pleaded that he did not agree to pay Rs. 1750/- to Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop. The learned Additional District Judge accepted this plea of defendant Bashir Ahmed and passed the decree in the following manner:- "The suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 3597/- together with cost with this direction that it shall be the responsibility of defendant No. 1 to pay Rs. 1750/- to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to get the registration of the truck transferred in his name. It shall not be the responsibility of the plaintiff to pay this amount to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff is further entitled to six percent interest per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 1750/- to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to get the registration of the truck transferred in his name. It shall not be the responsibility of the plaintiff to pay this amount to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff is further entitled to six percent interest per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 3250/- from the date of the suit to the date of realisation of the decretal amount." Aggrieved by the said decree, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 3. It is contended on behalf of plaintiff appellant that defendant No. 1 Bashir Ahmed had agreed to pay Rs. 1750/- to Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop at the time of purchasing the truck over and above the sale price of Rs. 5000/- and as such the plaintiff was entitled to a decree not only to the extent of Rs. 3597/- but to the total amount of Rs. 5347.80P. The question that falls for determination is whether the truck was sold by the plaintiff to Bashir Ahmed for a total consideration of Rs. 5000/- or Bashir Ahmed agreed to pay Rs. 1750/- more to Abdul Hussain & Ramswaroop. It may be pointed out at the outset that in the agreement Ex. 1 which was executed by Bashir Ahmed there is nothing to show that Bashir Ahmed agreed to pay Rs. 1750/- to Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop over and above the amount of Rs. 5000/-. The contention of the learned counsel is that an agreement similar to Ex. 1 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of Bashir Ahmed and therein it was mentioned that it would be the liability of Bashir Ahmed to pay Rs. 1750/- to Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop at the time of the registration of the truck. The agreement alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of Bashir Ahmed has not been produced by defendant Bashir Ahmed. The plaintiff was allowed to produce secondary evidence of that agreement. It appears from the statements of PW 1 Amarlal, PW 2 Jagannath, PW 3 Satishchand, PW 4 Sohan Lal and PW 5 Poonamchand that an agreement in favour of Bashir Ahmed was executed by the plaintiff simultaneously with the agreement Ex. 1 and in that agreement it was mentioned that it would be the liability of Bashir Ahmed to pay Rs. 1 and in that agreement it was mentioned that it would be the liability of Bashir Ahmed to pay Rs. 1750/- to Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop at the time of the registration of the truck. The learned Additional District Judge has not placed reliance on this evidence. A perusal of Ex. 1 shows that the agreement which was executed in favour of Bashir Ahmed by plaintiff Amarlal contained the same terms as mentioned in Ex. 1. That leads to the inference that the agreement executed by plaintiff Amarlal did not contain any extra condition to pay Rs. 1750/- to Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop. The evidence of the witnesses that the agreement executed by the plaintiff contained a term for payment of Rs. 1750/- in the circumstances, becomes highly suspicious. That apart, if any such condition was to be mentioned, it ought to have been mentioned in the agreement Ex. 1 and not in the agreement which was executed by the plaintiff in favour of Bashir Ahmed. Even assuming that such a term was mentioned in the agreement executed by Plaintiff Amarlal, defendant Bashir Ahmed was not bound by that term as that agreement was not signed by him. The utmost that can be said is that plaintiff Amarlal unilaterally incorporated a term which was beneficial to him in the agreement executed by him. The learned Additional District Judge, in the circumstances, rightly held that the truck was sold for Rs. 5000/- and defendant Bashir Ahmed did not undertake the liability to pay Rs. 1750/- to Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop. 4. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no justification for the court below to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff for an amount less then Rs. 5000/- and interest thereon. This contention appears to be well founded. From the circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the plaintiff was required to pay Rs. 1750/- to Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop. Therefore, the court should have passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 5347/- against Bashir Ahmed and the decretal amount should have been appointed between the plaintiff on the one hand and Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop on the other. Out of the decretal amount, the plaintiff should have been held entitled to Rs. 3597/- and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop to Rs. 1750/-. 5. 5347/- against Bashir Ahmed and the decretal amount should have been appointed between the plaintiff on the one hand and Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop on the other. Out of the decretal amount, the plaintiff should have been held entitled to Rs. 3597/- and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop to Rs. 1750/-. 5. The result is that the appeal is allowed in part, the judgement and decree of the lower court are modified and a decree for Rs. 5347/- is passed against the defendant Bashir Ahmed. It is further ordered that out of the decretal amount, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover Rs. 3597/- and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 Abdul Hussain and Ramswaroop shall be entitled to recover Rs. 1750/-. The defendant shall pay pendente lite and future interest at the rate of six percent per annum on the amount of Rs. 5000/- to the plaintiff. 6. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal. *******