RAGHUNATH JI TARACHAND Vs. BANK OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case, material for the purposes of this appeal, are undisputed and may be shortly stated: One Raghunathji Tarachand started a firm in Bombay in that name for carrying on business in cloth. On his death in 1902, his son Govardhandas continued the business. Govardhandas having died in March 1904, leaving his widow Parvatibai, two minor sons Narottam and Keshavlal, and five daughters, the cloth business was carried on for some time by the munim of the firm under the orders of the widow. When Narottam came of age, he looked after the business. Narottam was a friend of one Hirabhai Ghelabhai, a pearl merchant, who had been in the habit of getting others to draw promissory notes in his favour for the purposes of his business and negotiating them. Towards the end of 1907, the friends, who had so accommodated him, having refused to give notes in that way any further, Hirabhai persuaded Narottam to sign the promissory notes now in dispute and two more in the name of his ancestral firm, Raghunathji Tarachand Narottam signed them without the knowledge of his mother and of his munim and without any advantage to his own firm. The notes were endorsed by Hirabhai to the Bank of Bombay, who thereupon advanced moneys to the former.

(2.) The notes having been dishonoured, the suit was brought by the Bank to recover the moneys of the two notes from the firm of Raghunathji Tarachand. The first point made before us in support of this appeal from Heaton, J.'s decree is of a purely technical character. It is urged that the suit was wrongly brought against the firm Raghunathji Tarachand, and that, having regard to the Rules of this Court, it should have been filed against the individuals constituting the firm. Section 578 of the old Civil P. C., replaced by Section !)9 of the new Code, is a sufficient answer to the objection. It provides that no decress shall be reversed or modified in appeal for error or irregularity not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree.

(3.) The second point urged is conceded by Mr. Lowndes, counsel for the respondent. Heaton, J. has given a decree against the firm Raghuriathji Tarachand, and the result of that is a personal decree against the minor Keshavlal, who is a partner in the firm, entitling the Bank to attach and sell in satisfaction of the decree any property of the minor apart from his share in the firm. Mr. Lowndes agrees that the decree goes further than, the law warrants and must be modified accordingly.