PUKHRAJ SURANA Vs. JAWERCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Pukhraj Surana defendant against the judgment and "decree of the District Judge, Jodhpur, decreeing the suit brought by the plaintiffs respondents against the defendant appellant.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs was that they were carrying on business under the name and style of Chandulal Kushalchand at Bombay. The plaintiffs used to work as commission agent for the defendant who was the manager of his joint family, and was carrying on the business of the joint family. As a result of these dealings between the plaintiffs and the defendant, a certain sum of money was due to the plaintiffs. The defendant, in order to pay off in part the amount due from him to the plaintiffs, executed two Mudatti Hundis on Mangsar Sudi 8th St. 2003 for a total sum of Rs. 35,000/ -. One of these Hundis was for Rs. 20,000/- payable 61 days after date, while the other was for Rs. 15,000/-payable 121 days after date. The plaintiffs endorsed the Hundis in favour of Raghunathmal Bank and asked the hank to credit the money to their account as and when the Hundis were honoured. The Bank presented the Hundis on the respective dates of the maturity to the defendant, but they were dishonoured. Consequently, the Bank returned the Hundis to the plaintiffs who asked the defendant to pay the amount of the Hundis. The defendant, however, refused to do so, and consequently the plaintiffs filed the suit for Rs. 39,815/-including principal and interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant. It was admitted that there were transactions between the defendant and the plaintiffs; but it was said that no amount was due from the defendant to the plaintiffs. The defendant also admitted that the two Hundis were drawn by him, but his ease was that they were drawn for purchasing gold in future, and as the plaintiffs did not supply the gold the hundis were not honoured. The defendant thus set up the case of want of consideration. It was also urged that the Hundis were not stamped according to law, and as such they were inadmissible in evidence being unstamped, and could not be acted upon. It was further said that as no notice of dishonour had been given, the suit could not be maintained. Lastly, it was said that the endorsement on the Hundis by Shivlal was of no legal effect as he had no authority to do.