BISWANATH BHATTACHARJEE Vs. GOVINDA CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit was instituted by Govinda Chandra Das for himself and as executor to the estate of Hari Mohan Roy to recover from Biswanath Bhattacharjya and his son Jogesh Nath Bhattacharjya Rs. 70,362-8-0, being the amount due for principal and interest on a Bill of Exchange for Rs. 50,000 and to enforce that claim as a charge upon the property mentioned in a letter of hypothecation which was said to have accompanied the bill. The Bill of Exchange was dated 2nd August 1908, and was drawn by Jogesh Nath on his father who, according to the plaintiff s case, accepted it. Jogesh drew the bill at Dacca. It was taken to Elenga by two of the plaintiff s men, and is said to have been there accepted by Biswanath on 4th August 1908, when he also signed the letter of hypothecation accompanying the bill. Plaintiff s case is that two payments were made for interest by Jogesh: one of Rs. 3,000 on 7th November 1910 and the other of Rs. 1,000 on 27th October 1911. It is conceded that these payments were made by Jogesh by cheque. The suit was filed on 2nd January 1914 and if the interest was so paid, would be within time.

(2.) Biswanath died on 11th Chait 1320 (=25th March 1914). A written statement, purporting but not proved to have been signed by him the day before he died, was filed by his four sons the present appellants, in the July following. They had then been substituted as his representatives and they put in a further written statement on their own behalf in almost precisely the same terms. Jogesh in his personal capacity filed a written statement but did not defend the suit, nor did he take any part in the defence put forward by his three brothers, although he was then also on the record as one of his father s representatives; nor did he venture into the witness-box to give evidence. A number of issues were raised, the contesting defendants taking every imaginable defence. The learned Subordinate Judge decided against them on all points and the four sons joined in filing the present appeal.

(3.) Before us four questions have been raised.--(1) Did Biswanath accept the Bill of Exchange and sign the letter of hypothecation as alleged? (2) whether the Bill of Exchange was duly stamped; (3) whether the letter of hypothecation was properly stamped and registered; and (4) whether the claim is barred by limitation.