POPAT VIRJI Vs. DAMODAR JAIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit on a foreign judgment.

(2.) Several years ago one Damodar Jairam started doing business at Zanzibar. On his death his son Keshavji carried on the business in the same name. When Keshavji died in 1901, he left behind him that business at Zanzibar and several immoveable properties at Zanzibar, Bombay and Cutch. His widow Zaverbai obtained letters of administration at Zanzibar and at Bombay in 1903, and continued the business at Zanzibar. Keshavji left no issue.

(3.) Zaverbai resided ordinarily in Bombay and carried on the business at Zanzibar through managers whom she gave powers-of-attorney. In 1912, her brother Mulji Mathuradas was appointed the manager of the business and held a general power- of-attorney from her. In 1918, Mulji, on behalf of the firm of Damodar Jairam, entered into different partnerships with the plaintiff, Jumma Cassum and others. The business done by the firm of Damodar Jairam and the plaintiff in partnership was also done in the name of Damodar Jairam. The business was to purchase and sell piece-goods. In August, 1918, Mulji, on behalf of the firm of Damodar Jairam, passed a promissory note in favour of Cassum Juma & Co. for Rs. 15,625. Cassum Juma & Co. endorsed over that note to the plaintiff, who in his turn endorsed it over to the Standard Bank of South Africa at Zanzibar. When the note was presented to the firm of Damodar Jairam for payment, the manager of the firm, i.e. Mulji, gave a cheque upon the Standard Bank of South Africa for the amount of the note but that cheque was dishonoured. The note was, therefore, returned by the bank to the plaintiff. In May, 1919, Mulji was replaced by Devji Lalji as the manager of the business of Damodar Jairam at Zanzibar. The second defendant (Haridas Keshavji) was adopted to the deceased Keshavji by Zaverbai in about October, 1919. As such adopted son he became the owner of the properties of Keshavji including the said business at Zanzibar. The plaintiff filed suit No. 2870 of 1921 in the Court at Zanzibar to recover the amount due under the promissory note as the holder in due course. To that suit he had made the firm of Damodar Jairam, the second defendant: (Haridas Keshavji, the adopted son), and the partners of the firm of Cassum Juma & Co., party defendants. On behalf of the firm of Damodar Jairam, Zaverbai was served with the summons and she filed a written statement through Devji Lalji. In that written statement she stated that she had carried on the business in the name of Damodar Jairam till lately, but Mulji had no authority to trade in partnership or pass the promissory note. When that suit was filed, Chhabildas, the natural father of the second defendant (Haridas), was appointed a guardian ad litem of the second defendant, and as such guardian he filed his written statement (exhibit 3). In that written statement it was contended on behalf of the minor second defendant that Zaverbai was not entitled to carry on business other than that of managing the immpveable properties and Sharaffi and commission agency business on a small scale as was done by Keshavji during his life-time. It was further contended that the managers appointed by Zaverbai had launched into new ventures which were unauthorised and not binding on the firm or the minor. It was further alleged that neither Zaverbai nor Mulji had authority to carry on the business which gave rise to the liability under the promissory note, and it was denied that the debt alleged to be due to the plaintiff was a trade debt of the ancestral Hindu family firm as claimed by the plaintiff.