Skip to content


Pachkauri Lal and anr. Vs. Mulchand and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1922All279; 66Ind.Cas.503
AppellantPachkauri Lal and anr.
RespondentMulchand and anr.
Excerpt:
negotiable instruments act (xxvi of 1881), section 76 - hundi--drawer and drawee same--presentation not necessary-damages. - .....business of the firm. on this point there is no clear finding by the district judge. we, therefore, refer an issue to the learned district judge, namely, did behari lai borrow this rs. 2,000 for the business of the firm behari lal makund lal? no farther evidence will be taken. on return of the finding the usual ten days will be allowed for objections.
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises out of a hundi drawn by Behari Lal Balmakund on the firm of Behari Lal-Baltnakand in favour of Mul Chand, the plaintiffs agreeing to pay him Rs. 2,000 within ninety days from the 30th of April 1918 with interest at 12 per cent per annum. The plaintiffs gave the defendants a red it for certain items and sued for Rs. 1,906, the balance with interest.

2. The main defense of the contesting defendants was the denial of the execution of the hundi; alternatively, it was claimed that execution by one member of the firm would not bind the other members as the money was not required for or used in the business of the firm.

3. The Trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, a further point was taken, namely, that as the hundi had not been presented tie provisions of Section 64 of the Negotiable Instruments Act barred the suit. The other pleas raised in the Trial Court were reiterated. On this new point the Court below held that this particular hundi was really a promissory note and, therefore, did not fall within Section 64 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In this view we are unable to agree; but it seems to us that the provisions of Section 76 Clause (d) render presentation unnecessary in this case According to that section no presentation for payment is necessary 'as against the drawer, if the drawer could not suffer damage from the want of such presentation.' In this case the drawer and the drawer were the same, and, therefore, both of them knew when the hundi was executed that it was payable ninety days thereafter, and on the expiration of the ninety days, both of them knew that it had not been paid. Thus, no question of damage can arise and the cases cited are, therefore, not applicable.

4. There remains another point, however, which has not been decided and that is, whether, when Behari Lai executed this hundi, he was acting for the firm, arid whether the money was required for the business of the firm. On this point there is no clear finding by the District Judge. We, therefore, refer an issue to the learned District Judge, namely, did Behari Lai borrow this Rs. 2,000 for the business of the firm Behari Lal Makund Lal? No farther evidence will be taken. On return of the finding the usual ten days will be allowed for objections.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //