SONARAM DUTTA Vs. SITARAM CHAMARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's case is as follows: Defendants 2 and 3 are contractors who had obtained a contract to do certain work for the Doomdooma Town Union. They were short of funds and approached the plaintiffs who are bankers for financial help. An agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and these two defendants whereby the plaintiffs agreed to advance them money up to a sum of Rs. 1000 charging interest thereon at 12 per cent. per annum. The defendants agreed to endorse to the plaintiffs all cheques paid to them by the union for the work done in connexion with the contract in payment of the advances made. The plaintiffs allege that they also hypothecated to the plaintiffs as security for the advances made all the amount that may become due to them from the aforesaid union for the work done by them. There was a sum of Rs. 861 due from the union to defendants 2 and 3 on a bill for work done by them pursuant to this contract. The plaintiffs claim that this sum is hypothecated to them. Defendant 1 instituted a suit against defendants 2 and 3 for the recovery of a sum of money and obtained a decree therein. In execution of the decree defendant 1 attached this sum. The plaintiffs objected to the attachment and claimed that the sum had been hypothecated to them. The claim was disallowed by the Munsif. The plaintiffs accordingly brought the present suit for a declaration of their rights and for release of the amount from attachment.

(2.) Defendant 1 contested the suit. The defence taken was that there was no valid hypothecation of this sum, that the plaintiffs had not advanced any money, that the proper court-fees had not been paid, and that the suit was bad as the proper consequential reliefs were not sought. Fraud was also alleged but no attempt was made to support this last plea. The learned Munsif in an unsatisfactory, judgment in which the issues have not been clearly framed dismissed the suit after arriving at certain findings. As far as I have been able to follow his judgment the learned Munsif holds that the plaintiffs have sought for a consequential relief and that they should have paid court-fees for this relief. He also finds that there has been no valid hypothecation and that there was no good evidence to show that the plaintiffs had advanced money. On these findings he has dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiffs appealed. The learned District Judge has interpreted the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 differently from the Munsif. He holds that by the deed of agreement the money lying to the credit of defendants 2 and 3 with the Doomdooma Town Union was hypothecated to the plaintiffs. He holds also that no court-fees are payable for the consequential relief prayed for and decrees the plaintiffs suit.

(3.) Defendant 1 appeals. The first contention raised is that by the agreement between the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 there was no intention to hypothecate any sum which may become due from the aforesaid union for the work done by defendants 2 and 3. There is no substance in this ground. The agreement is before me and there can be no manner of doubt that defendants 2 and 3 purported to hypothecate to the plaintiffs any sum that may become due to them from the union for work done by them. I cannot understand how the learned Munsif could come to any other conclusion. This is what is said in the agreement: And all the amount due for the said contract work remains as security for the amount advanced by you with interest.