BEZONJI Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While appeals Nos. 197 and 198 of 1959 are filed by Messrs. Bezonji Byramji and Co., Jalna and another, as against the decision in O. S, Nos. 86 and 87 of 1953 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Anantapur against the Central Bank of India, appeal No. 455 of 1959 is filed by the Central Bank of India against the decision in O. S. No. 84 of 1953 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Anantapur against Messrs. Bezonji Byramji and Co., and another. All the three suits O. S. nOB. 84, 86 and 87 of 1953 were tried together by the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur and evidence was recorded in O. S. No. 84 of 1953 as identical questions arose for decision in all the three suks. While the learned Subordinate Judge decreed O. S. Nos. 86 and 87 of 1953, he dismissed O. S. No. 84 of 1953 against defendants I and 2. The appeals are consequently filed by the aggrieved parties.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff, the Central Bank of India Limited, was that as the hundies which were issued by Messrs. Bezonji Byramji and Co., as the drawer or the endroser were dishonoured, the Bank was entitled to proceed against Messrs. Bezonji Byramji and Co., either as the drawer or the endorser. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the contention of the plaintiff that in all the cases the liability of Messrs. Bezonji Byramji and Co., as the drawer or the endorser arose. He held that consequently the plaintiff was entitled to a decree in O. S. Nos. 86 and 87 of 1953. So far as O. S. No. 84 of 1953 was concerned, the learned Subordinate Judge took the view that the drawers limit was exceeded and that consequently the Bank was not exceeded to recover the amount from Messrs Bezonji Byramji and Co,

(3.) For the purpose of understanding the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts. Messrs. Bezonji Byramji and Co., the 1st defendant was carrying on business at Jalna. The 1st defendant had a branch by name Messrs Bezonji Byramji and Co., at Guntakal. Though it was disputed in the court below that the 1st defendant had no connection with the 2nd defendant, the court below held that the 2nd defendant was a branch of the 1st defendant-firm. The learned Advocate General did not question that finding but conceded that the 2nd defendant was a branch of the 1st defendant.