KANHYALAL Vs. RAMKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE nine appeals are directed against a common judgment of the District Judge, Bikaner, and raise identical questions. They originally came for hearing before a learned single Judge who thought fit to refer them for decision to a Bench, as the valuation of the appeals taken collectively is above Rs. 5000/-.

(2.) THE appeals arise out of nine suits filed by the plaintiff Ramkumar against the present appellant Kanhyalal, and Bansilal and Hazarilal father and son respectively. THE plaintiff's case as disclosed in the plaint in case No. 331 of 1949 was that defendants Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Bansilal and Hazarilal being father and son, were members of a joint Hindu family and carried on a joint family business, that they were building contractors and required money in connection with the execution of certain contracts which they had undertaken, and, therefore, Hazarilal as manager of the joint family business borrowed a sum of Rs. 1000/-from the plaintiff under the surety ship of defendant No. 3 Kanhyalal and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1 per cent, per mensem, and in lieu of this arrangement between the parties, on Asad Vadi 9 Smt. 2005 (corresponding to the 1st July 1948) defendant Hazarilal on behalf of himself and his father drew a Hundi for Rs. 1000/-which was made payable after 121 days, and defendant No. 3 Kanhyalal was therein mentioned to have deposited the said money jf[k;k ckcwdUgS;kykyth odhy ds ikl Bansilal Hazarilal drew this Hundi on themselves, the Hundi being a "shahjog" Hundi, and Kanhyalal defendant appellant is said to have endorsed it on the same day in favour of the plaintiff Ramkumar. THE plaintiff's case further was that on the expiry of the "muddat", this Hundi was presented to the defendants for payment on Kati Vadi 10 Smt. 2005 (corresponding to 27th October, 1948) but no payment was made, and thus the Hundi was dishonoured. THE plaintiff, therefore, brought this suit on 23-7-1949, for Rs. 1000/-principal and Rs. 90/- as interest up to the date of suit and prayed for a decree against all the defendants. THE Hundis in the other suits namely 332 to 339 of 1949 were executed on Asad Sudi 3 Smt. 2005 (equal to 9th July 1948) and were made payable 31 days after date but apart from this difference, the other material facts on which those suits are based are the same. THE amounts claimed in these other suits are Rs. 1000/- principal and Rs. 160/by way of interest in each case. THEre is only one more point of distinction between the Hundi in suit No. 331 and the Hundis in the other suits (Nos. 332 to 339), which is material for the purposes of the present appeals and that is that whereas the endorsement on the Hundi in case No. 331 dated Asad Vadi 9 Smt. 2005 by the endorser Kanhyalal bears his signature at the end of the endorsement which was also in his own handwriting, the endorsements on the other Hundis, though they are in the handwriting of Kanhyalal, they admittedly do not bear any signature of his at the foot thereof.

(3.) THE first contention raised on behalf of the defendant appellant was that the endorsements made on the hundis in favour of the plaintiff were not sufficient and valid under Section 15 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as they were not signed by him except in the case of suit No. 331, as already pointed out above. We may here quote in extenso the endorsements in question. THE endorsement in case No. 331 is in these terms: ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED).. (Chunnilal was the father of Ramkumar and Sigdiwala appears to be the surname). It is obvious that it bears the signature of Kanhyalal at the end. THE endorsement on the other eight hundis was in the following terms: ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED).. THEse endorsements though in the handwriting of Kanhyaial, however, do not bear his signature at the end. It is, therefore, argued that he was not an endorser at all and no liability for the payment of the hundis arose against him. Section 15 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is in these terms: