SURAJMAL Vs. KASHI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STAPLES , A.J.C. 1. The facts in this case are for the most part established. The applicant obtained a hundi for Rs. 700 from the first non-applicant Kashiprasad drawn upon the second non-applicant Khyaliram in Bombay. The date of the hundi corresponded to 5th February 1930, and it was payable at sight. The applicant then sent the hundi to his agent Misrilal in Bombay to collect the amount and the hundi was presented to the non-applicant Khyaliram on 7th February, but it was refused, the firm of the non-applicant saying that there ware no funds with the non-applicant belonging to Kashiprasad. A report was then made to an Association in Bombay, known as the Hindustani Merchants' Association, which deals with such matters, and the hundi was entered on their register on 10th February and was then again presented by the Association to the non-applicant Khyaliram on 11th February, but Khyaliram again refused to honour the hundi or to pay the amount.

(2.) THE Association then gave a certificate to the effect that the hundi had been dishonoured to the applicant's agent and the agent thereupon at once posted the hundi to Kashiprasad in Jubbulpore with the certificate, which has been filed as Ex. P-2 : the letter is filed as Ex. P-3. On the same day however after the letter had been posted, the non-applicant Khyaliram went to the agent Misrilal and said that he had just received funds from Kashiprasad and thereupon he deposited the amount of the hundi, Rs. 700, which was entered in the amount books as amanat or deposit. Misrilal after crediting the amount as amanat at ones sent a telegram, which has been filed as Ex. P-5, asking for the return of the hundi as payment had been received and also sent a postcard, filed as Ex. P-4, stating that after the letter had been posted containing the hundi the amount was paid, that a telegram was sent and that the hundi should be returned at once. The hundi however was not returned and there is evidence on record to show that according to the mercantile custom or usage in Bombay in this respect the amount deposited was returned after four days, namely, on 15th February, Then Misrilal sent the telegram, which is filed as Ex. P-6, on 18th February stating that the non-applicant would not pay the amount.

(3.) BRIEFLY the applicant's case was that Khyaliram, by paying the amount to his agent Misrilal in Bombay on 11th February, accepted the hundi and was therefore liable. The trial Court however has hold that the acceptance was only conditional, namely, on condition that the hundi should be returned within four days, and that that condition was according to the local usage in force among merchants dealing in hundis in Bombay. The Judge therefore found that Misrilal was correct in returning the amount deposited and that, as the hundi was not returned within four days the acceptance was revoked or was never completed and Khyaliram could not therefore be held liable.