JAVER CHAND Vs. PUKHRAJ SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question for determination in this appeal is whether or not the two hundis sued upon were admissible in evidence. The learned Trial Judge held that they were, and in that view of the matter decreed the suit in full with costs and future interest, by his judgment and decree dated September 26, 1952. On appeal, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, by its judgment and decree dated October 8, 1956 allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Each party was directed to bear its own costs throughout. The High Court granted the necessary certificate under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. That is how the appeal is before us.

(2.) It is only necessary to state the following facts in order to appreciate the question of law that has to be determined in this appeal. The defendant-responmdent is said to have owed money to the plaintiffs, the appellants in this case, during the course of their business as commission agents for the defendant, at Bombay. Towards the payment of those dues, the defendant drew two mudatti hundis in favouor of the plaintiffs, for the sum of 35 thousand rupees, one for 20 thousand rupees payable 61 days after date, and the other for 15 thousand rupees payable 121 days after date. The plaintiffs endorsed the two hunddis to G. Raghunathmal Bank and asked the Bank to credit their account with the amount on realization. On the date of their maturity, the Bank presented those hundis to the defendant, who dishonoured them. Thereupon the Bank returned the hundis to the plaintiffs. As the defendant did not pay the amount due under those documents on repeated demands by the plaintiffs, they instituted a suit for realization of Rs. 39,615/-, principal with interest. On those allegations, the suit was instituted in the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur, on January 4, 1949.

(3.) It is not necessary to set out the defendant's written statement in detail. It is enough to state that the defendant admitted the execution of the hundis, but alleged that they had been drawn for purchasing gold in future and since the plaintiffs did not send the gold, the hundis were not honoured or accepted. It was denied that the defendant owed any amount to the plaintiffs or that the hundis were drawn in payment of any such debt. It was thus contended that the hundis were without consideration. The most important plea raised by the defendant in bar of the suit was that the hundis were inadmissible in evidence because they had not been stamped according to the Stamp Law.