BHICUMCHAND CHURURIA Vs. DEEPCHAND DOOGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sues to re-cover Rs. 10,000 for principal and interest under an instrument of hypothecation, dated 17 February 1930 and for other sums said to be due from the defendant Deepchand Doogar, which instrument was made between the plaintiff and the defendant Chimniram Halaschand of the one part and the defendant Deepohand Doogar of the other part. In addition to Deepchand Doogar and Chimniram Halaschand there are four other parties, Padamchand Pannalal, Matichand Fulchand, Ramkissen Jaikissen and Labhchand Rekubchand, who may briefly be described either as attaching creditors or as creditors who have instituted proceedings or obtained decrees against Deepchand Doogar. The only defendants who have appeared by counsel at the hearing are Padamchand Pannalal and Matichand Fulchand.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that Deepchand Doogar, the son of Indirchand, who is said to have been born on 28 January 1910 was carrying on a business in Calcutta known as the New East Bengal Store, by his uncle and attorney Chandanmull, to whom he had granted a power-of-attorney, dated 15 August 1929 under which Chandanmull executed the deed of hypothecation in suit, the consideration for which was Rs. 20,000, of which Rs. 10,000 were advanced by Chimniram Halaschand and Rs. 10,000 by the plaintiff.

(3.) On 11 February 1930 Padamchand Pannalal instituted, in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, Suit No. 2987 of 1930, to recover the sum of Rs. 1,951-2-0 for the price of goods sold and delivered. In that suit an ex parte decree was made on 26 February next ensuing, and on 11 March property said to be subject to the deed of hypothecation was attached in execution of the decree. On 17 March 1930 Bhicumchand Chururia instituted in the Court of Small Causes, proceedings, which have been termed a claim case, to establish his right to the property attached and to have the attachment removed. On 17 March the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes made an order: Let the property attached be released to the claimant on his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar for the value of the goods seized.