NAND DULAREY LAL Vs. CHAND BIHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for sale of mortgaged property. Nand Dularey Lal borrowed Rs. 3.200 from the plaintiffs OH the 27 of January, 1895, on the security of a bond which was executed nominally in favour of the wives of the three plaintiffs. For realization of the amount due on this security the suit was brought. The bond was executed on behalf of Nand Dularey Lal under a power-of attorney, dated the 26 of November, 1894. By this power-of-attorney Nand Dularey Lal appointed his brothers Raj Dularey, Madan Behari Lal and Bans Gopal his agents and authorised them to borrow money, sign and execute bonds in his name, hypothecate his property and get bonds registered. The bond in suit was signed by Raj Dularey Lal on behalf of Nand Dularey Lal as his attorney and was attested by Bans Gopal and Madan Behari Lal. The principal defence set up by Nand Dularey Lal was that Raj Dularey Lal was not alone authorised to execute the bond on his behalf and that the bond was not therefore binding on him.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that the execution of the bond in the manner described was in compliance with the provisions of the power-of-attorney, and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3.) This appeal was then preferred and the only ground of appeal which has been pressed in argument before us is that the document sued on was not executed in accordance with the authority given to the agents and therefore is not binding upon the appellants.