CHUNNILAL Vs. GHANSHYAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a money suit.

(3.) THE next contention that Ranulal had no authority on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 to sign the account Ex. 1 involves a pure finding of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence. It is in the evidence of Ganeshmal, Shrigopal, Kedarnath and Jugalkishore that Ranulal was working as a Munim and Karinda at the firm of Jairoop Chunnilal. THE only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in this connection is that there is no evidence to show that Ranulal had executed similar other documents. In my opinion the contention raised on behalf of the appellant in this connection has no substance in view of the overwhelming evidence produced from the side of the plaintiff that Ranulal was acting as Munim and Karinda at the defendants' firm, and had authority to send the accounts, signed by him on their behalf.