BARKET LAL Vs. DEVIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the Defendant and cross -objection by the Plaintiffs arise from a decree of the Original Side of the High Court, allowing the Plaintiffs' suit on the basis of two judgments of the Bombay High Court; but disallowing them interest 'pendente lite'.

(2.) THE Plaintiff Respondents are the sons of one Varadas Ambadas, who with his brother Devidas Vardasa constituted a firm called Devidas Vardasa. This firm had dealings with another firm of Messrs. Prem Raj Pannalal in the course of which they sold cotton to Prem Raj Pannalal. The purchasing firm gave to the seller's firm three hundies of Rs. 2000 each, and on March 6, 1927, the latter posted two of the hunches to their commission agents Ramakaran Ramnath, which is the name of the Defendant's firm to negotiate them and on getting the money either to remit cash or send Hali -coins to the firm at Sailu. The envelope containing these hundies did not reach the agent, whereupon enquiries were made and the Devdas Vardasa firm wired to Madhavdas Jethabhai asking them not to pay hundies when presented. The latter stated that they had the endorsement of Ramkaran Ramnath in favour of one Umarsab who had been paid. It appears that this Umarsab on March 13, 1927, approached the Defendant's firm at Hyderabad, and obtained a letter of introduction to their branch at Bombay, in which the Bombay branch was requested to make purchases as desired by him; but not to give him. credit. On March 15, 1927, Umarsab presented the letter to the Munim at Bombay, stated that he had two hundies and requested him to cash them. The Bombay Branch then received the hundies, presented them to Madhavas Jethabhai's firm, who on seeing the signature of the Defendant's firm as the last endorsees, paid the two amounts in the afternoon of the March 15, 1927. The Defendant's firm at Bombay then purchased gold and. delivered it to Umarsab, who since then could not be found. The Devidas Vardasa firm then instituted a suit for the recovery of the two amounts of the hundi against Madhavdas Jethabhai and Defendant's firms in the Original Side of the Bombay High Court. The Defendant's firm appeared and contested the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the father of the Plaintiff -Respondents died and all the four Plaintiffs were substituted in his place. Kania J., on September 27, 1933, gave a judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs and directed the Defendants to pay Rs. 4000 with interest till judgment and costs, with further interest at the rate of six per cent on judgment. Madhavdas Jethabhai, it appears, appealed; but the appeal was dismissed. Some of the decretal amount had also been paid; but the costs of:the suit together with interest were not discharged. The firm of Devidas Vardasa also instituted another suit No. 892 of 1927 against Jethabhai Duji & the Defendant's firm in the Original Side of the Bombay High Court for the recovery of Rs. 1,000 being the amount of another hundi, which was enclosed in the envelope containing the earlier two hundies and sent to the Defendant's firm for purposes of realising the amount from the drawee. The endorsement on this hundi was similarly forged by Umarsab, the amount realised through the Defendant's firm at Bombay and misappropriated. The Defendant's firm contested this suit, which was also decreed on September 27, 1933 with interest from March 15, 1927 till judgment, and cost, with further interest on judgment at six per cent. This entire decretal amount has not been paid.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the objections raised in the written statement, which have also been urged before us, I would clarify the. principle or which such foreign judgments are enforced, The necessity has arisen in this case because the two judgments were passed at the time when this State had not been integrated, nor then existed any arrangement under which the judgments of British Indian Courts could be executed.