KISHENPRASAD AND CO LTD Vs. RAJARAM RAMHARAKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a very peculiar suit, The defendants are all members of a joint Hindu family, and in effect the plaintiffs are seeking to make all the members of this family liable for the embezzlement by defendant No. 1 with the aid of defendant No 2 of a sum of Rs.40,000 belonging to his employers, the plaintiffs. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have both been prosecuted to conviction for this embezzlement. Defendant No. 2 has since died, and his name was struck out at the trial. As regards defendant No. 5, who is a minor. it is conceded the this only liability is to the extent of the assets received by him from his deceased father, defendant No. 2.

(2.) The details of the case are lengthy, but shortly stated these are the main outlines. The plaintiffs were foolish enough to entrust the first defendant with the cashing of two cheques of Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 10,000 respectively. I say foolish because the first defendant was only an employee of a few weeks standing on a salary of Rs. 17 per mensem. He had come from Kudanpur in the Allahabad District, and at that time defendant No. 2, the brother of defendant No 1, was also in Bombay. It is common ground that defendant No. 1 cashed the two cheques for Rs. 40,000 at the bank, but never gave the proceeds to his masters as he ought to have done His story was that on his return from the bank he was taken ill in the street, and that while he lay unconscious, he must have been robbed of the money in question. This was clearly a suspicious story, but at the time the police thought there was insufficient evidence to convict him, and accordingly he was allowed to return to his native country.

(3.) The plaintiffs, however, had a watch kept through the Allahabad police over the defendants movements, and after some time this led to further discoveries. The defendants were apparently misled into thinking that the whole affair had blown over. At any rate much accession of prosperity appears to have come to the joint family. For instance, heavy mortgages of many thousands of rupees on their family lands were paid off, and other lands purchased. I may say at once that though various tales to the contrary were put forward, there is no satisfactory evidence to show where the money came from, apart from the proceeds of the Rs. 40,000 cheques. I am quite satisfied that that was the true source from which these family mortgages were paid off and the hinds purchased. But what is even more important is that the defendants proceeded to quarrel as to how the balance of the proceeds of the stolen moneys should be dealt with, and they actually summoned their village punchayet to settle their differences on this point. It is clear from the plaintiffs evidence that at that punchayet meeting it was common ground that the money had been brought by the first defendant from Bombay with the aid of the second defendant, and that the first defendant claimed that he was entitled to a larger share of it than the rest of the family, because he was the person who had secured the money. Naturally one does not accept such a story without closely criticising it. In the present case I am satisfied that what the plaintiffs witnesses have said about that punchayet is true.