HAZARIMAL Vs. SONRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil second appeal on behalf of the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Balotra dated the 24th of September. 1953 reversing the judgment and decree of the Munsif, Bhinmal, dated the 25th of march. 1953.

(2.) THE defendant executed a Hundi in favour of Punamchand Genaji on Achlaji lakhmaji of Bombay on Jeth Badi 7th Smt. 2001. Punamchand Genaji indorsed this Hundi in favour of Chhogaji Khushalji. He also named Fauzaji Khushalji as drawee in case of dishonour of the Hundi by Achlaji Lakhmaji. The Hundi was dishonoured by Achlaji Lakhmaji and Chhogaji Kushalji received payment from fauzaji Khushalji. Punachand Genaji, thereafter, made payment to Fauzaji Khushalji and received back the Hundi. Subsequently, he transferred his rights under the Hundi to the plaintiff Sonraj who brought the suit under the Hundi. The suit was decreed by the lower appellate Court.

(3.) IN this appeal it is argued on behalf of the defendant that Fauzaji Khushalji had not re-indorsed the Hundi in favour of Punamchand Genaji and as such he had no right to transfer his claim under the Hundi. In my opinion no such reindorsement is necessary. Punamchand Genaji had endorsed the Hundi in favour of Chhogaji khushalji. Chhogaji Khushalji had received payment from Fauzaji Khushalji and Fauzaji khushalji had received payment from Punamchand Genaji and the Hundi came in possession of a person who had first endorsed it though of course without any indorsement in his favour. The question is whether such endorsement is necessary. So far as the law in america is concerned, it has been settled beyond dispute that such re-endorsement is not necessary. Reference in this connection may be made to paragraph 576 in the Treatise on the Law of Negotiable Instruments by J. W. Daniel Sixth Edition quoted below: