BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three cases all turn on the same point of fact. The appellant, Thakur Bhagwan Singh, had a place of business in Agra, and he occasionally resided there. When he was not there one Babu Lal carried on business for him. In all these suits he is sued on bills which are either drawn or accepted by Babu Lal, and the whole point turns on Babu Lal's authority so to do. It was agreed that the evidence in each of the three cases should be available in the others.

(2.) THE appellant denied all knowledge of the bills and of the authority. Both Courts found that he was absolutely untrustworthy, and that his statements were worth nothing. Now in the appeals Nos. 34 and 36, there are concurrent findings of the learned Subordinate Judge and the High Court that Babu Lal had authority to sign the bills, and they, therefore, come under the general rule observed by this Board as to concurrent findings, which is that they will not interfere unless very definite and explicit grounds for that interference are assigned: see per Lord Hobhouse in Moung Tha Hnyeen v. Moung Pan Nyo. L.R. 27 I.A. 166

(3.) IN Ram Anugra Narain Singh v. Chowdhry Hanuman Sahai L.R. 30 I.A. 41, 43 this Board said: