TIKAN CHAND CHAUDHURY Vs. SUDARSAN TRIGUNAIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad, confirming a decision of the Munsif of Dhanbad. The plaintiff sued defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on a hand-note executed by defendant No. 2 for Rs. 600 with interest at 4 per cent. per mensem.

(2.) The plaintiff alleged that the loan was incurred by the defendant No. 2, as the managing member of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his father defendant No. 1 and his brother defendant No. 3. The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 3 only who pleaded that the money was not borrowed for legal necessity and the rate of interest was excessive. The first Court held that defendants 1 and 3 were liable but reduced the interest to 12 per cent. per annum. Defendants 1 and 3 appealed to the District Judge who held that they were not liable on the ground that an undisclosed principal is not liable under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) For this proposition the learned Judge cited the decision of the Privy Council in Sadasuk Janki Das V/s. Kishan Pershad AIR 1918 PC 146. That decision has been considered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Krishnanand Khare V/s. Raja Ram Singh AIR 1922 All 116, where it was held that the principle of that case would not apply to a joint Hindu family Their Lordships at p. 395 of the Report held: The position of the head of a joint family is not the same as that of an ordinary business agent and according to the true view, a joint Hindu family, being a legal person according to Hindu law, lawfully represented by and acting through the managing member or head thereof, is included ordinarily in the term "a person". In other words, a promissory note, according to the definition contained in Section 4, Negotiable Instruments Act, is an instrument in writing containing an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum of money signed by the maker and the question in the event of the person in whose favour such document is given or into whose hands it may fall in the case of an alleged joint Hindu family, is whether such a joint Hindu family is in fact the maker or only the member thereof who happens to have signed the document.